We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Internal limiting membrane peeling or not: a systematic review and meta-analysis of idiopathic macular pucker surgery.
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2017 November
PURPOSE: To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling improves anatomical and functional outcomes in idiopathic macular pucker (IMP)/epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and CNKI databases for studies published before 15 September 2016. The eligibility criteria included studies comparing ILM peeling versus no-peeling for IMP surgery.
RESULTS: Thirteen articles (10 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study and 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) were included in the review. Primary outcomes: no differences were observed in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) or central macular thickness (CMT) at 12 months; however, lower ERM recurrence (OR, 0.13; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; p=0.0004) and reoperation rates (OR, 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; p=0.004) that favoured ILM peeling were observed at the final follow-up.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: no difference was observed in BCVA at 3, 6 months, the final follow-up or in CMT at 3, 6 months, the final follow-up. Significantly increased CMT, which favoured ILM peeling, was observed at the final follow-up (p=0.002) in the RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS: ILM peeling yielded greater anatomical success, but no improvement in functional outcomes as the treatment of choice for patients undergoing IMP surgery.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and CNKI databases for studies published before 15 September 2016. The eligibility criteria included studies comparing ILM peeling versus no-peeling for IMP surgery.
RESULTS: Thirteen articles (10 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study and 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) were included in the review. Primary outcomes: no differences were observed in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) or central macular thickness (CMT) at 12 months; however, lower ERM recurrence (OR, 0.13; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; p=0.0004) and reoperation rates (OR, 0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.49; p=0.004) that favoured ILM peeling were observed at the final follow-up.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: no difference was observed in BCVA at 3, 6 months, the final follow-up or in CMT at 3, 6 months, the final follow-up. Significantly increased CMT, which favoured ILM peeling, was observed at the final follow-up (p=0.002) in the RCTs.
CONCLUSIONS: ILM peeling yielded greater anatomical success, but no improvement in functional outcomes as the treatment of choice for patients undergoing IMP surgery.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app