Scleral Buckling Alone or in Combination with Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: A Meta-Analysis of 7,212 Eyes

Purpose: The efficacy and safety of scleral buckling (SB) versus combination SB and pars plana vitrectomy (SB + PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair remains unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify comparative studies published from Jan 200...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ophthalmologica (Basel) 2022-08, Vol.245 (4), p.296-314
Hauptverfasser: Nichani, Prem A.H., Dhoot, Arjan S., Popovic, Marko M., Eshtiaghi, Arshia, Mihalache, Andrew, Sayal, Aman P., Yu, Hannah J., Wykoff, Charles C., Kertes, Peter J., Muni, Rajeev H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: The efficacy and safety of scleral buckling (SB) versus combination SB and pars plana vitrectomy (SB + PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair remains unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify comparative studies published from Jan 2000–Jun 2021 that reported on the efficacy and/or safety following SB and SB + PPV for RRD repair. Final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) represented the primary endpoint, while reattachment rates and ocular adverse events were secondary endpoints. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Across 18 studies, 3912 SB and 3300 SB + PPV eyes were included. Final BCVA was nonsignificantly different between SB and SB + PPV (20/38 vs. 20/66 Snellen; WMD = −0.11 LogMAR; 95% CI: [–0.29, 0.07]; p = 0.23). Primary reattachment rate was similar between procedures (p = 0.74); however, SB alone achieved a significantly higher final reattachment rate (97.40% vs. 93.86%; RR = 1.03; 95% CI: [1.00, 1.06]; p = 0.04). Compared to SB + PPV, SB alone had a significantly lower risk of postoperative macular edema (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: [0.47, 1.00]; p = 0.05) and cataract formation (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: [0.12, 0.96]; p = 0.04). The incidence of macular hole, epiretinal membrane, residual subretinal fluid, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, elevated intraocular pressure, and extraocular muscle dysfunction were similar between SB and SB + PPV. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in final BCVA between SB + PPV and SB alone in RRD. SB alone offers a slightly higher final reattachment rate along with a reduced risk of macular edema and cataract. Primary reattachment rate and the incidence of other complications were similar between the two procedures.
ISSN:0030-3755
1423-0267
DOI:10.1159/000524888