Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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 outcom...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0201010-e0201010 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0201010 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0201010 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Fallico, Matteo Russo, Andrea Longo, Antonio Pulvirenti, Alfredo Avitabile, Teresio Bonfiglio, Vincenza Castellino, Niccolò Cennamo, Gilda Reibaldi, Michele |
| description | 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.
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.
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.
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).
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0201010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2072260230</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A547036727</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_285942fd6d6f4ef0903c86af3422ece0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A547036727</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b627bf795ae74b16854dcd9552f6cf905c9d5cbc6187bebe4d26099b0b052983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjGnSpo0XwrD4MbCw4NdtSNPTTpa2GZN0dH6Lf9ZTpztMZS8kFymnz3lPz3t6ouhpQpYJy5M3N3ZwvWqXW9vDklCS4LkXnSeC0QWnhN0_eT6LHnl_Q0jGCs4fRmeMEJqKgp1Hv9d9gFEnbk1ngumbuIOudKqHeAvQjoEdOD_4uLfHSDW48do60ym3j3cmONDBdvu4ti52G2g6FWwDvcU8ByiLBSoISm866MPbeBX7vQ-AlNEI7Az8jFVfYe2gFgrpvTf-cfSgVq2HJ9N9EX378P7r5afF1fXH9eXqaqG5oGFBS07zss5FpiBPy4QXWVrpSmQZrbmuBcm0qDJdap4UeQklpBXlRIiSlCSj6MJF9Pygu22tl5OvXlKSUwQpI0isD0Rl1Y2c2pZWGfk3YF0jlcNWWpC0yERK64pXvE6hJoIwXXBVs5RS0DBqvZuqDWUHlUY_nGpnovM3vdnIxu4kx_HRZBR4NQk4-2MAH2RnvIa2xZmh3-N3M8YSkXFEX_yD3t3dRDUKGzB9bbGuHkXlKktzwnhOc6SWd1B4KuiMxp-wNhifJbyeJSAT4Fdo1OC9XH_5_P_s9fc5-_KE3YBqw8bbdgjG9n4OpgdQO-u9g_pockLkuEO3bshxh-S0Q5j27HRAx6TbpWF_ADJIGlU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2072260230</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Fallico, Matteo ; Russo, Andrea ; Longo, Antonio ; Pulvirenti, Alfredo ; Avitabile, Teresio ; Bonfiglio, Vincenza ; Castellino, Niccolò ; Cennamo, Gilda ; Reibaldi, Michele</creator><contributor>Virgili, Gianni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fallico, Matteo ; Russo, Andrea ; Longo, Antonio ; Pulvirenti, Alfredo ; Avitabile, Teresio ; Bonfiglio, Vincenza ; Castellino, Niccolò ; Cennamo, Gilda ; Reibaldi, Michele ; Virgili, Gianni</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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.
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.
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).
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30024983</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acuity ; Analysis ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Collaboration ; Comparative analysis ; Confidence intervals ; Constraining ; Data processing ; Detaching ; Epiretinal Membrane - diagnosis ; Epiretinal Membrane - surgery ; Eye ; Eye (anatomy) ; Handbooks ; Humans ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Optic nerve ; Optics ; Peeling ; Physical Sciences ; Postoperative Complications - prevention & control ; Prevention ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retina ; Retinal detachment ; Retinal Detachment - diagnosis ; Retinal Detachment - surgery ; Social Sciences ; Statistical analysis ; Surgery ; Systematic review ; Treatment outcome ; Visual acuity ; Vitrectomy ; Vitrectomy - methods</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0201010-e0201010</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Fallico et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Fallico et al 2018 Fallico et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b627bf795ae74b16854dcd9552f6cf905c9d5cbc6187bebe4d26099b0b052983</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b627bf795ae74b16854dcd9552f6cf905c9d5cbc6187bebe4d26099b0b052983</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1368-6729</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053210/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053210/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23849,27907,27908,53774,53776,79351,79352</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30024983$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Virgili, Gianni</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fallico, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulvirenti, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avitabile, Teresio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonfiglio, Vincenza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellino, Niccolò</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cennamo, Gilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reibaldi, Michele</creatorcontrib><title>Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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.
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.
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.
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).
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.</description><subject>Acuity</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Constraining</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Detaching</subject><subject>Epiretinal Membrane - diagnosis</subject><subject>Epiretinal Membrane - surgery</subject><subject>Eye</subject><subject>Eye (anatomy)</subject><subject>Handbooks</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Optic nerve</subject><subject>Optics</subject><subject>Peeling</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - prevention & control</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retina</subject><subject>Retinal detachment</subject><subject>Retinal Detachment - diagnosis</subject><subject>Retinal Detachment - surgery</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment outcome</subject><subject>Visual acuity</subject><subject>Vitrectomy</subject><subject>Vitrectomy - methods</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjGnSpo0XwrD4MbCw4NdtSNPTTpa2GZN0dH6Lf9ZTpztMZS8kFymnz3lPz3t6ouhpQpYJy5M3N3ZwvWqXW9vDklCS4LkXnSeC0QWnhN0_eT6LHnl_Q0jGCs4fRmeMEJqKgp1Hv9d9gFEnbk1ngumbuIOudKqHeAvQjoEdOD_4uLfHSDW48do60ym3j3cmONDBdvu4ti52G2g6FWwDvcU8ByiLBSoISm866MPbeBX7vQ-AlNEI7Az8jFVfYe2gFgrpvTf-cfSgVq2HJ9N9EX378P7r5afF1fXH9eXqaqG5oGFBS07zss5FpiBPy4QXWVrpSmQZrbmuBcm0qDJdap4UeQklpBXlRIiSlCSj6MJF9Pygu22tl5OvXlKSUwQpI0isD0Rl1Y2c2pZWGfk3YF0jlcNWWpC0yERK64pXvE6hJoIwXXBVs5RS0DBqvZuqDWUHlUY_nGpnovM3vdnIxu4kx_HRZBR4NQk4-2MAH2RnvIa2xZmh3-N3M8YSkXFEX_yD3t3dRDUKGzB9bbGuHkXlKktzwnhOc6SWd1B4KuiMxp-wNhifJbyeJSAT4Fdo1OC9XH_5_P_s9fc5-_KE3YBqw8bbdgjG9n4OpgdQO-u9g_pockLkuEO3bshxh-S0Q5j27HRAx6TbpWF_ADJIGlU</recordid><startdate>20180719</startdate><enddate>20180719</enddate><creator>Fallico, Matteo</creator><creator>Russo, Andrea</creator><creator>Longo, Antonio</creator><creator>Pulvirenti, Alfredo</creator><creator>Avitabile, Teresio</creator><creator>Bonfiglio, Vincenza</creator><creator>Castellino, Niccolò</creator><creator>Cennamo, Gilda</creator><creator>Reibaldi, Michele</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-6729</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180719</creationdate><title>Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Fallico, Matteo ; Russo, Andrea ; Longo, Antonio ; Pulvirenti, Alfredo ; Avitabile, Teresio ; Bonfiglio, Vincenza ; Castellino, Niccolò ; Cennamo, Gilda ; Reibaldi, Michele</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b627bf795ae74b16854dcd9552f6cf905c9d5cbc6187bebe4d26099b0b052983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Acuity</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Constraining</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Detaching</topic><topic>Epiretinal Membrane - diagnosis</topic><topic>Epiretinal Membrane - surgery</topic><topic>Eye</topic><topic>Eye (anatomy)</topic><topic>Handbooks</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Optic nerve</topic><topic>Optics</topic><topic>Peeling</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - prevention & control</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retina</topic><topic>Retinal detachment</topic><topic>Retinal Detachment - diagnosis</topic><topic>Retinal Detachment - surgery</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment outcome</topic><topic>Visual acuity</topic><topic>Vitrectomy</topic><topic>Vitrectomy - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fallico, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulvirenti, Alfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Avitabile, Teresio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonfiglio, Vincenza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellino, Niccolò</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cennamo, Gilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reibaldi, Michele</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Gale)</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fallico, Matteo</au><au>Russo, Andrea</au><au>Longo, Antonio</au><au>Pulvirenti, Alfredo</au><au>Avitabile, Teresio</au><au>Bonfiglio, Vincenza</au><au>Castellino, Niccolò</au><au>Cennamo, Gilda</au><au>Reibaldi, Michele</au><au>Virgili, Gianni</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-07-19</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0201010</spage><epage>e0201010</epage><pages>e0201010-e0201010</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.
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.
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.
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).
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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30024983</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0201010</doi><tpages>e0201010</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-6729</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2018-07, Vol.13 (7), p.e0201010-e0201010 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2072260230 |
| source | MEDLINE; Public Library of Science (PLoS); DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Acuity Analysis Bias Biology and Life Sciences Care and treatment Collaboration Comparative analysis Confidence intervals Constraining Data processing Detaching Epiretinal Membrane - diagnosis Epiretinal Membrane - surgery Eye Eye (anatomy) Handbooks Humans Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Methods Optic nerve Optics Peeling Physical Sciences Postoperative Complications - prevention & control Prevention Research and Analysis Methods Retina Retinal detachment Retinal Detachment - diagnosis Retinal Detachment - surgery Social Sciences Statistical analysis Surgery Systematic review Treatment outcome Visual acuity Vitrectomy Vitrectomy - methods |
| title | Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T08%3A43%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Internal%20limiting%20membrane%20peeling%20versus%20no%20peeling%20during%20primary%20vitrectomy%20for%20rhegmatogenous%20retinal%20detachment:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Fallico,%20Matteo&rft.date=2018-07-19&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0201010&rft.epage=e0201010&rft.pages=e0201010-e0201010&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA547036727%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2072260230&rft_id=info:pmid/30024983&rft_galeid=A547036727&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_285942fd6d6f4ef0903c86af3422ece0&rfr_iscdi=true |