Cargando…

Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) prevents the formation of postoperative macular epiretinal membrane (ERM). However, studies that compared vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD, have reported controve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fallico, Matteo, Russo, Andrea, Longo, Antonio, Pulvirenti, Alfredo, Avitabile, Teresio, Bonfiglio, Vincenza, Castellino, Niccolò, Cennamo, Gilda, Reibaldi, Michele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30024983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010
_version_ 1783340780506578944
author Fallico, Matteo
Russo, Andrea
Longo, Antonio
Pulvirenti, Alfredo
Avitabile, Teresio
Bonfiglio, Vincenza
Castellino, Niccolò
Cennamo, Gilda
Reibaldi, Michele
author_facet Fallico, Matteo
Russo, Andrea
Longo, Antonio
Pulvirenti, Alfredo
Avitabile, Teresio
Bonfiglio, Vincenza
Castellino, Niccolò
Cennamo, Gilda
Reibaldi, Michele
author_sort Fallico, Matteo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) prevents the formation of postoperative macular epiretinal membrane (ERM). However, studies that compared vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD, have reported controversial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of ILM peeling versus non-ILM peeling during vitrectomy for RRD by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 2018 to identify studies that compared primary vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD with at least six months follow-up. Primary outcomes were the rate of postoperative ERM formation and mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change after vitrectomy. Rate of recurrence of retinal detachment (RD) was assessed as secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) expressed pooled results for rate of ERM formation and rate of RD recurrence in ILM peeling and non-ILM peeling groups. Pooled results for BCVA change in the two groups were expressed as Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Nine studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total number of 404 eyes in the ILM peeling group and 365 eyes in the non-ILM peeling group, were included. The analysis from pooled data indicated a significant lower rate of postoperative ERM formation in the ILM peeling group compared to the non-ILM peeling group (9 studies, 769 eyes, RR = 0.14; CI: 0.07 to 0.28; P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in mean BCVA change (9 studies, 769 eyes, WMD = 0.02; CI: -0.11 to 0.16; P = 0.75). Rate of recurrence of RD was lower in the ILM peeling group (6 studies, 603 eyes, RR = 0.32; CI = 0.17 to 0.61; P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: ILM peeling during vitrectomy for RRD prevents the formation of macular epiretinal membrane postoperatively and reduces the incidence of RD recurrence, but better visual outcome was not found compared to non-ILM peeling vitrectomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6053210
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60532102018-07-27 Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis Fallico, Matteo Russo, Andrea Longo, Antonio Pulvirenti, Alfredo Avitabile, Teresio Bonfiglio, Vincenza Castellino, Niccolò Cennamo, Gilda Reibaldi, Michele PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) prevents the formation of postoperative macular epiretinal membrane (ERM). However, studies that compared vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD, have reported controversial outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of ILM peeling versus non-ILM peeling during vitrectomy for RRD by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 2018 to identify studies that compared primary vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD with at least six months follow-up. Primary outcomes were the rate of postoperative ERM formation and mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change after vitrectomy. Rate of recurrence of retinal detachment (RD) was assessed as secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) expressed pooled results for rate of ERM formation and rate of RD recurrence in ILM peeling and non-ILM peeling groups. Pooled results for BCVA change in the two groups were expressed as Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Nine studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total number of 404 eyes in the ILM peeling group and 365 eyes in the non-ILM peeling group, were included. The analysis from pooled data indicated a significant lower rate of postoperative ERM formation in the ILM peeling group compared to the non-ILM peeling group (9 studies, 769 eyes, RR = 0.14; CI: 0.07 to 0.28; P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in mean BCVA change (9 studies, 769 eyes, WMD = 0.02; CI: -0.11 to 0.16; P = 0.75). Rate of recurrence of RD was lower in the ILM peeling group (6 studies, 603 eyes, RR = 0.32; CI = 0.17 to 0.61; P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: ILM peeling during vitrectomy for RRD prevents the formation of macular epiretinal membrane postoperatively and reduces the incidence of RD recurrence, but better visual outcome was not found compared to non-ILM peeling vitrectomy. Public Library of Science 2018-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6053210/ /pubmed/30024983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010 Text en © 2018 Fallico 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
Fallico, Matteo
Russo, Andrea
Longo, Antonio
Pulvirenti, Alfredo
Avitabile, Teresio
Bonfiglio, Vincenza
Castellino, Niccolò
Cennamo, Gilda
Reibaldi, Michele
Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053210/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30024983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010
work_keys_str_mv AT fallicomatteo internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT russoandrea internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT longoantonio internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pulvirentialfredo internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT avitabileteresio internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bonfigliovincenza internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT castellinoniccolo internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT cennamogilda internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT reibaldimichele internallimitingmembranepeelingversusnopeelingduringprimaryvitrectomyforrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis