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

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.