| Literature DB >> 28886700 |
Bo Meng1, Lu Zhao1, Yi Yin1, Hongyang Li1, Xiaolei Wang1, Xiufen Yang1, Ran You1, Jialin Wang1, Youjing Zhang1, Hui Wang1, Ran Du1, Ningli Wang2, Siyan Zhan3, Yanling Wang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myopic foveoschisis (MF) is among the leading causes of visual loss in high myopia. However, it remains controversial whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling or gas tamponade is necessary treatment option for MF.Entities:
Keywords: Internal limiting membrane peeling; Myopic foveoschisis; Systematic review; Tamponade
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28886700 PMCID: PMC5591565 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-017-0562-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1a Flowchart of selection process in the comparison of ILM peeling group and non-ILM peeling group. b Flowchart of selection process in the comparison of Tamponade group and non-Tamponade group
Characteristics of included studies in the comparison of ILM peeling group and non-ILM peeling group
| Study | Study | Follow-up | ILM Peeling | Non-ILM Peeling | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Year | Location | Design | Operation Mode | Time(m) | Eyes | Age(y) | Refractive Errors (D) | Axis(mm) | Eyes | Age(y) | Refractive Errors (D) | Axis(mm) |
| Li et al. [ | 2007 | China | PS | PPV + tamponade + ILM Peeling; PPV + tamponade | >3 | 4 | NR | −17.5 ± 4.75 | 30.27 ± 2.13 | 7 | NR | −17.2 ± 5.5 | 30.12 ± 3.28 |
| Song et al. [ | 2011 | China | RCT | PPV + ILM Peeling; PPV | 9 | 10 | NR | NR | NR | 24 | NR | NR | NR |
| Song et al. [ | 2011 | China | RCT | PPV + tamponade + ILM Peeling; PPV + tamponade | 9 | 13 | NR | NR | NR | 16 | NR | NR | NR |
| Xu et al. [ | 2011 | China | RCT | PPV + tamponade + ILM Peeling; PPV + tamponade | 6 ~ 14 | 14 | 57 ± 6.9 | −12.4 ± 2.6 | 29.1 ± 3.1 | 15 | 59 ± 8.7 | −11.7 ± 2.8 | 28.3 ± 2.3 |
| Cai et al. [ | 2011 | China | RCT | PPV + ILM Peeling; PPV | 3 | 14 | 35 ~ 79 | −14 ~ −6 | 26.31 ~ 33.12 | 11 | 35 ~ 79 | −14 ~ −6 | 26.31 ~ 33.12 |
| Liu et al. [ | 2014 | China | RCT | PPV + tamponade + ILM Peeling; PPV + tamponade | 2 | 16 | 46.63 ± 7.54 | −14.81 ± 4.53 | 30.8 ± 2.56 | 14 | 46.14 ± 8.44 | −14.93 ± 4.43 | 31.08 ± 2.46 |
| Wang et al. [ | 2014 | China | RCT | PPV + tamponade + ILM Peeling; PPV + tamponade | 6 ~ 11 | 15 | 50.4 ± 7.2 | −9.93 ± 2.36 | 30.17 ± 1.28 | 13 | 53.15 ± 6 | −10.31 ± 2.26 | 29.73 ± 1.3 |
PS prospective study, RCT randomized control trial, PPV pars plana vitrectomy, NR not reported, Song et al.①, Song et al.②: two sets of data in the study of Song et al
Characteristics of included studies in the comparison of Tamponade group and non-Tamponade group
| Study | Study | Follow-up | Tamponade | Non-Tamponade | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Year | Location | Design | Operation Mode | Time(m) | Eyes | Age(y) | Refractive Errors (D) | Axis(mm) | Eyes | Age(y) | Refractive Errors (D) | Axis(mm) |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2010 | China | RCT | PPV + tamponade; PPV | 9 | 16 | 54.8 ± 13.3 | −20.3 ~ −13.6 | 30.2 ± 1.6 | 24 | 52.7 ± 11.9 | −19.7 ~ −14.1 | 30.8 ± 2 |
| Song et al. [ | 2011 | China | RCT | PPV + ILM Peeling + tamponade; PPV + ILM Peeling | 9 | 13 | NR | NR | NR | 10 | NR | NR | NR |
| Kim et al. [ | 2012 | Korea | RS | PPV + ILM Peeling + tamponade; PPV + ILM Peeling | 12 | 9 | 61.78 ± 8.98 | −18.21 ± 4.36 | 29.31 ± 1.1 | 8 | 62.13 ± 10.1 | −14.21 ± 3.1 | 30.24 ± 1.55 |
| Gui et al. [ | 2015 | China | RCT | PPV + ILM Peeling + tamponade; PPV + ILM Peeling | 6 | 15 | 42.56 ± 3.74 | −11.54 ± 5.26 | 27.06 ± 3.24 | 14 | 42.56 ± 3.74 | −11.54 ± 5.26 | 27.06 ± 3.24 |
RS retrospective study, RCT randomized control trial, PPV pars plana vitrectomy, NR not reported
Fig. 2a A forest plot showing the proportion of resolution of MF between ILM peeling group and non-ILM peeling group. b A forest plot showing the proportion of resolution of MF between Tamponade group and non-Tamponade group. Song①, Song②: two sets of data in the study of Song et al
Fig. 3A forest plot showing the proportion of visual acuity improvement between ILM peeling group and non-ILM peeling group
Fig. 4A forest plot showing the proportion of postoperative complications between Tamponade group and non-Tamponade group
Fig. 5Funnel plots of the included studies comparing the proportion of resolution of MF of retinal reattachment showing no significant publication bias. a ILM peeling group versus non-ILM peeling group. b Tamponade group versus non-Tamponade group. SE = standard error, OR = odds ratio