Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus vitrectomy with no peeling for idiopathic full‐thickness macular hole (FTMH)
Background Several observational studies have suggested the potential benefit of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling to treat idiopathic full‐thickness macular hole (FTMH). However, no strong evidence is available on the potential benefit(s) of this surgical manoeuvre and uncertainty remains am...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2013-06, Vol.2013 (6), p.CD009306-CD009306 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Several observational studies have suggested the potential benefit of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling to treat idiopathic full‐thickness macular hole (FTMH). However, no strong evidence is available on the potential benefit(s) of this surgical manoeuvre and uncertainty remains among vitreoretinal surgeons about the indication for peeling the ILM, whether to use it in all cases or in long‐standing and/or larger holes.
Objectives
To determine whether ILM peeling improves anatomical and functional outcomes of macular hole surgery compared with the no‐peeling technique and to investigate the impact of different parameters such as presenting vision, stage/size of the hole and duration of symptoms in the success of the surgery.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In‐Process and Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, (January 1950 to February 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled‐trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 February 2013.
We searched reference lists of the studies included in the review for information about other studies on ILM peeling in macular hole surgery. We searched Proceedings for the following conferences up to February 2013: American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), Annual Meeting of the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS), Annual Meeting of the Retina Society, Congress of the Asia‐Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology (APAO), European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER) Annual Congress, European Vitreoretinal Society (EVRS) Annual Meeting, Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Meeting, International Vitreoretinal Meeting, and World Ophthalmology Congress.
Selection criteria
Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ILM peeling with th |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1465-1858 1465-1858 1469-493X |
DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD009306.pub2 |