We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole.
Ophthalmology 2014 March
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling improves anatomic and functional outcomes of full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery when compared with the no-peeling technique.
DESIGN: Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis undertaken under the auspices of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included.
PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH undergoing vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling.
INTERVENTION: Macular hole surgery, including vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with or without ILM peeling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCdVA) at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were BCdVA at 3 and 12 months; best-corrected near visual acuity (BCnVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months; primary (after a single surgery) and final (after >1 surgery) macular hole closure; need for additional surgical interventions; intraoperative and postoperative complications; patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (EuroQol-5D and Vision Function Questionnaire-25 scores at 6 months); and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: Four RCTs were identified and included in the review. All RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; IPD were obtained from 3 of the 4 RCTs. No evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 6 months was detected (mean difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.03; P=0.27); however, there was evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 3 months favoring ILM peeling (mean difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.17 to-0.02; P=0.02). There was evidence of an effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to primary (odds ratio [OR], 9.27; 95% CI, 4.98-17.24; P<0.00001) and final macular hole closure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.63-9.75; P=0.02) and less requirement for additional surgery (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05-0.23; P<0.00001), with no evidence of a difference between groups with regard to intraoperative or postoperative complications or PROs. The ILM peeling was found to be highly cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence supports ILM peeling as the treatment of choice for patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH.
DESIGN: Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis undertaken under the auspices of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included.
PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: Patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH undergoing vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling.
INTERVENTION: Macular hole surgery, including vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with or without ILM peeling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCdVA) at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were BCdVA at 3 and 12 months; best-corrected near visual acuity (BCnVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months; primary (after a single surgery) and final (after >1 surgery) macular hole closure; need for additional surgical interventions; intraoperative and postoperative complications; patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (EuroQol-5D and Vision Function Questionnaire-25 scores at 6 months); and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS: Four RCTs were identified and included in the review. All RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; IPD were obtained from 3 of the 4 RCTs. No evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 6 months was detected (mean difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.03; P=0.27); however, there was evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 3 months favoring ILM peeling (mean difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.17 to-0.02; P=0.02). There was evidence of an effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to primary (odds ratio [OR], 9.27; 95% CI, 4.98-17.24; P<0.00001) and final macular hole closure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.63-9.75; P=0.02) and less requirement for additional surgery (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05-0.23; P<0.00001), with no evidence of a difference between groups with regard to intraoperative or postoperative complications or PROs. The ILM peeling was found to be highly cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence supports ILM peeling as the treatment of choice for patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH.
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