Ehsan Rahimy1, Colin A McCannel. 1. *Stein Eye Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and †Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the literature regarding macular hole reopening rates stratified by whether the internal limiting membrane (ILM) was peeled during vitrectomy surgery. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on macular hole reopenings among previously surgically closed idiopathic macular holes. A comprehensive literature search using the National Library of Medicine PubMed interface was used to identify potentially eligible publications in English. The minimum mean follow-up period for reports to be included in this study was 12 months. Analysis was divided into eyes that underwent vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling. The primary outcome parameter was the proportion of macular hole reopenings among previously closed holes between the two groups. Secondary outcome parameters included duration from initial surgery to hole reopening and preoperative and postoperative best-corrected correct visual acuities among the non-ILM peeling and ILM peeling groups. RESULTS: A total of 50 publications reporting on 5,480 eyes met inclusion criteria and were assessed in this meta-analysis. The reopening rate without ILM peeling was 7.12% (125 of 1,756 eyes), compared with 1.18% (44 of 3,724 eyes) with ILM peeling (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.22; Fisher's exact test: P < 0.0001). There were no other identifiable associations or risk factors for reopening. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis support the concept that ILM peeling during macular hole surgery reduces the likelihood of macular hole reopening.
PURPOSE: To assess the literature regarding macular hole reopening rates stratified by whether the internal limiting membrane (ILM) was peeled during vitrectomy surgery. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on macular hole reopenings among previously surgically closed idiopathic macular holes. A comprehensive literature search using the National Library of Medicine PubMed interface was used to identify potentially eligible publications in English. The minimum mean follow-up period for reports to be included in this study was 12 months. Analysis was divided into eyes that underwent vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling. The primary outcome parameter was the proportion of macular hole reopenings among previously closed holes between the two groups. Secondary outcome parameters included duration from initial surgery to hole reopening and preoperative and postoperative best-corrected correct visual acuities among the non-ILM peeling and ILM peeling groups. RESULTS: A total of 50 publications reporting on 5,480 eyes met inclusion criteria and were assessed in this meta-analysis. The reopening rate without ILM peeling was 7.12% (125 of 1,756 eyes), compared with 1.18% (44 of 3,724 eyes) with ILM peeling (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.22; Fisher's exact test: P < 0.0001). There were no other identifiable associations or risk factors for reopening. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis support the concept that ILM peeling during macular hole surgery reduces the likelihood of macular hole reopening.
Authors: Nitish Mehta; Fabio Lavinsky; Ryan Larochelle; Carl Rebhun; Nihaal B Mehta; Rebecca L Yanovsky; Michael N Cohen; Gregory D Lee; Vaidehi Dedania; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Gadi Wollstein; Joel S Schuman; Nadia Waheed; Yasha Modi Journal: Retina Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.975