Cargando…

Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Studies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, Wei-Cheng, Lin, Chin, Lee, Cho-Hao, Sung, Tzu-Ling, Tung, Tao-Hsin, Liu, Jorn-Hon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622372
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179105
_version_ 1783244305730633728
author Chang, Wei-Cheng
Lin, Chin
Lee, Cho-Hao
Sung, Tzu-Ling
Tung, Tao-Hsin
Liu, Jorn-Hon
author_facet Chang, Wei-Cheng
Lin, Chin
Lee, Cho-Hao
Sung, Tzu-Ling
Tung, Tao-Hsin
Liu, Jorn-Hon
author_sort Chang, Wei-Cheng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for idiopathic ERM. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI databases, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov, published until July 2016, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with ERM and ILM peeling and with only ERM peeling, for treating idiopathic ERM. Studies with sufficient data were selected. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and ERM recurrence rate. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 756 eyes were identified. This demonstrated that the postoperative BCVA within 12 months was significantly better in the non-ILM peeling group (MD = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.0460), but that the patients in the ILM peeling group had significantly better postoperative BCVA after 18 months (MD = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.23 to −0.04; P = 0.0049) than did those in the non-ILM peeling group. The non-ILM peeling group exhibited a higher reduction in postoperative CRT (MD = 51.55, 95% CI:−84.23 to −18.88; P = 0.0020) and a higher recurrence rate of ERM (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.16 to 0.72; P = 0.0048) than did the ILM peeling group. However, the improvement rates of BCVA (RR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.72 to 1.47; P = 0.8802) and postoperative CRTs (MD = 18.15, 95% CI:−2.29 to 38.60; P = 0.0818) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vitrectomy with ILM peeling results in better visual improvement in long-term follow-ups and lower ERM recurrence rates, and vitrectomy with only ERM peeling is more efficacious in reduction of CRT than is vitrectomy with ILM peeling.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5473547
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54735472017-06-22 Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis Chang, Wei-Cheng Lin, Chin Lee, Cho-Hao Sung, Tzu-Ling Tung, Tao-Hsin Liu, Jorn-Hon PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Studies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for idiopathic ERM. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI databases, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov, published until July 2016, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with ERM and ILM peeling and with only ERM peeling, for treating idiopathic ERM. Studies with sufficient data were selected. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and ERM recurrence rate. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 756 eyes were identified. This demonstrated that the postoperative BCVA within 12 months was significantly better in the non-ILM peeling group (MD = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.0460), but that the patients in the ILM peeling group had significantly better postoperative BCVA after 18 months (MD = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.23 to −0.04; P = 0.0049) than did those in the non-ILM peeling group. The non-ILM peeling group exhibited a higher reduction in postoperative CRT (MD = 51.55, 95% CI:−84.23 to −18.88; P = 0.0020) and a higher recurrence rate of ERM (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.16 to 0.72; P = 0.0048) than did the ILM peeling group. However, the improvement rates of BCVA (RR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.72 to 1.47; P = 0.8802) and postoperative CRTs (MD = 18.15, 95% CI:−2.29 to 38.60; P = 0.0818) were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vitrectomy with ILM peeling results in better visual improvement in long-term follow-ups and lower ERM recurrence rates, and vitrectomy with only ERM peeling is more efficacious in reduction of CRT than is vitrectomy with ILM peeling. Public Library of Science 2017-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5473547/ /pubmed/28622372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179105 Text en © 2017 Chang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chang, Wei-Cheng
Lin, Chin
Lee, Cho-Hao
Sung, Tzu-Ling
Tung, Tao-Hsin
Liu, Jorn-Hon
Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title_full Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title_fullStr Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title_short Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis
title_sort vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473547/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28622372
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179105
work_keys_str_mv AT changweicheng vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis
AT linchin vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis
AT leechohao vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis
AT sungtzuling vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis
AT tungtaohsin vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis
AT liujornhon vitrectomywithorwithoutinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicepiretinalmembraneametaanalysis