4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      FOVEA-SPARING VERSUS COMPLETE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING IN VITRECTOMY FOR VITREOMACULAR INTERFACE DISEASES : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

          A meta-analysis was conducted and found that vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling resulted in better visual outcomes when treating vitreomacular interface diseases and reduced the incidence of full-thickness macular hole in nonmacular hole cases.

          Purpose:

          To evaluate fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in vitrectomy compared with traditional complete ILM peeling in vitreomacular interface diseases, including macular hole (MH), epiretinal membrane, macular foveoschisis, myopic traction maculopathy, and the like.

          Methods:

          PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CNKI Databases, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website (PROSPERO number CRD42020187401) were searched. Controlled trials comparing fovea-sparing with complete ILM peeling were included. Postoperative changes in best-corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness in vitreomacular interface diseases, the incidence of MH closure in MH cases, full-thickness macular hole development in non-MH cases, and retinal reattachment in retinoschisis cases were extracted.

          Results:

          Fourteen studies (487 eyes) were eligible. Compared with complete ILM peeling, the fovea-sparing technique revealed significant improvement in best-corrected visual acuity ( logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; weighted mean difference = −0.70; 95% confidence interval, −1.11 to −0.30), and a reduced incidence of full-thickness macular hole was noted in non-MH cases (risk ratios = 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.08–0.76). However, no significant differences in mean change in central retinal thickness, incidence of MH closure in MH cases, and retinal reattachment in retinoschisis cases were noted.

          Conclusion:

          Based on current evidence, fovea-sparing ILM peeling significantly improve visual outcomes and decrease complications of full-thickness macular hole development in vitreomacular interface diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

            Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole.

              The International Vitreomacular Traction Study (IVTS) Group was convened to develop an optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based anatomic classification system for diseases of the vitreomacular interface (VMI).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Retina
                Retina
                retina
                Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.)
                Retina
                0275-004X
                1539-2864
                June 2021
                12 February 2021
                : 41
                : 6
                : 1143-1152
                Affiliations
                [* ]Department of Ophthalmology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China; and
                []Key Laboratory of Ocular Fundus Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
                Author notes
                Reprint requests: Youxin Chen, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, 1st Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100730, China; e-mail: chenyx@ 123456pumch.cn
                Article
                RETINA-220-1073 00002
                10.1097/IAE.0000000000003140
                8140668
                34001832
                c5af2970-fbb1-4597-aaed-848fa55744d4
                Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Opthalmic Communications Society, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                best-corrected visual acuity,central retinal thickness,fovea-sparing ilm peeling,meta-analysis,vitreomacular interface disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article