Citation:Hu XY,Liu H,Wang LN,Ding YZ,Luan J.Efficacy and safety of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for diabetic macular edema: a Meta-analysis.Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11(11):1848-1855,doi:10.18240/ijo.2018.11.18
Efficacy and safety of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for diabetic macular edema: a Meta-analysis
Received:March 25, 2018  Revised:May 25, 2018
Email this Article  Add to Favorites  Print
DOI:10.18240/ijo.2018.11.18
Key Words:internal limiting membrane; vitrectomy; diabetic macular edema; Meta-analysis
Fund Project:
              
AuthorInstitution
Xin-Ying Hu Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing , Jiangsu Province, China
Huan Liu Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing , Jiangsu Province, China
Li-Na Wang Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing , Jiangsu Province, China
Yu-Zhi Ding Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing , Jiangsu Province, China
Jie Luan Department of Ophthalmology, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing , Jiangsu Province, China
Hits: 449
Download times: 66
Abstract:
      AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for diabetic macular edema (DME).

    METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, SionMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI databases and Wanfang databases, published until Oct. 2017, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling, for treating DME. Pooled results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and complication incidents.

    RESULTS: A total of 14 studies involving 857 eyes were included of which three studies were Chinese and the rests were English literatures. Meta-analysis indicated that compared with vitrectomy alone, vitrectomy with ILM peeling could improve BCVA more obviously (OR=1.66, 95%CI: 1.12-2.46, P=0.01) and had higher rate of CMT reduction (OR=3.89, 95%CI: 1.37-11.11, P=0.01). There were significant statistical differences between the two surgical methods for both BCVA and CMT (P<0.05). For the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, the incidence of epiretinal membrane (ERM) was slightly lower in the ILM peeling group than the group without ILM peeling (OR=0.38, 95%CI: 0.07-2.00, P=0.25), although insigni?cant statistically. Other incidences of overall complications, iatrogenic peripheral retinal break and increased intraocular pressure indicated no significant difference between two groups (OR=1.19, 95%CI: 0.82-1.73, P=0.36; OR=1.21, 95%CI: 0.66-2.21, P=0.53; OR=1.34, 95%CI: 0.75-2.40, P=0.32).

    CONCLUSION: Vitrectomy is effective for DME and the effect can be improved by additional ILM peeling, especially for anatomical efficacy, without increasing the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications. However, it is imperative to gain more evaluation in the future due to the paucity of prospective randomized study.

PMC FullText Html:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232319/
PDF Fulltext  Download reader  HTML Fulltext   View/Add Comment