| Literature DB >> 30691441 |
Song Xia1, Xin-Yu Zhao2, Er-Qian Wang2, You-Xin Chen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated face-down posturing (FDP) with the far less physically challenging nonsupine posturing (NSP) in the treatment of idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (MHs). The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of postoperative posturing on the anatomical and functional outcomes of MH surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Face-down; Macular hole; Meta-analysis; Posturing
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30691441 PMCID: PMC6348675 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1047-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1Flowchart depicting the selection of included studies
Main characteristics of the included studies
| First author | Publication year | Design | MH stage | Sample size(Patients) | Group size(Eyes) | Average age | Gender ratio (Male/female) | Duration of FDP | Details of the surgical procedure | Intra- and postoperative evaluating parameters | Follow-up periods | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDP/NSP | FDP/NSP | FDP | NSP | |||||||||
| Alberti, M | 2016 | RCT | Stage 2 3 4 | 68 | 34/34 | (69.8 ± 6.9) / (69.3 ± 5.7) | 3/12 | 9/6 | 3 days | 23-G PPV with the fill of 15%C3F8 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 3 months |
| Alberti, M | 2015 | Retrospective study | Stage 2 3 4 | 117 | 66/56 | (70.4 ± 6.8) / (69.5 ± 5.8) | 22/44 | 21/36 | 3 days | 23-G PPV with the fill of 15%C3F8 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 6 months |
| Feist, RM | 2014 | Retrospective study | NA | 82 | 57/25 | NA | 27/35 | 11/14 | 3 days | PPV with the fill of C3F8 or SF6 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | NA |
| Forsaa, VA | 2013 | Retrospective study | Stage 2 3 4 | 64 | 33/34 | (68.4 ± 9.0) / (71.7 ± 6.8) | 8/2 | 4/5 | 3 days | 23-G PPV with the fill of 22–30%SF6 or 16–20%C2F6 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 4.7–19.8 months |
| Yorston, D | 2012 | RCT | Stage 2 3 4 | 30 | 16/14 | (71.1 ± 5.9) / (68.0 ± 5.6) | 1/15 | 0/14 | 10 days | 20-G PPV with the fill of 14%C3F8 and the peel of ILM.The phacoemulsification with introcular lens insertion was carried out. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 6 months |
| Lange, CA | 2012 | RCT | Stage 2 3 4 | 30 | 15/15 | (66.8 ± 5.9) / (71.0 ± 6.2) | 7/11 | 11/6 | 10 days | 20-G PPV with the fill of 14%C3F8 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 6–8 weeks |
| Tadayoni, R | 2011 | RCT | ≤400 μm | 69 | 34/35 | (67.31 ± 6.46) / (66.31 ± 6.51) | 11/23 | 15/20 | 10 days | PPV with the fill of 17%C2F6. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 3 months |
| Guillaubey, A | 2008 | RCT | Stage 2 3 4 | 144 | 72/78 | (55.7 ± 9.9) / (55.7 ± 7.4) | 25/47 | 27/51 | 10 days | 20-G PPV with the fill of 14%C3F8, 17%C2F6 or 20%SF6 and the peel of ILM.When needed, 62/150 had phacovitrectomy. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 6 months |
| Tranos, PG | 2007 | RCT | Stage 2 3 4 | 41 | 25/16 | NA | NA | NA | 10 days | 20-G PPV with the fill of 16%C3F8 and the peel of ILM. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, 25-Visual Function Questionnaire(VFQ-25) and complications | 4 months |
| Simcock, PR | 2001 | Non-randomised historically controlled study | Stage 2 3 | 33 | 13/20 | NA | 2/11 | 5/15 | 10 days | PPV with the fill of 20% C2F6.phacoemulsification with introcular lens insertion was combined. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 3 months |
| Szurman, P | 2000 | Consecutive case control study | Stage 2 3 4 | 50 | 25/25 | (67 ± 5.6) / (67 ± 4.2) | 6/19 | 6/19 | 14 days | PPV with fill of 20%SF6 or 16% C3F8. | Postoperative BCVA, MH closure rate, complications | 6–12 months |
RCT Randomized controlled trial. MH Macular hole. FDP Face-down posturing. NSP Non-supine posturing. BCVA Best corrected vision acuity. NA Not available
12-item scale critical appraisal scores
| Author | 12-item scale critical appraisal score | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Quatily | |
| Guillaubey, A 2008 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Tranos, PG 2007 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Lange, CA 2012 | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Yorston, D 2012 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Simcock, PR 2001 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Tadayoni, R 2011 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Szurman, P 2000 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Alberti, M 2015 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Feist, RM 2014 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Forsaa, VA 2013 | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Alberti, M 2016 | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
12-item scale criteria: (1)Method of randomization; (2)Concealed allocation; (3)Patient blinding; (4)Provider blinding; (5)Outcome assessor blinding; (6)Drop-out rate; (7)Patient allocated as plan; (8)Free of selective outcome reporting; (9)Same baseline; (10)Co-interventions avoided or similar; (11)Acceptable compliance; (12)Same time of outcome assessment. Y=Yes, N=No, A trial with a score of 7 or more was considered high quality, more than four but no more than seven was considered moderate quality, and no more than four was considered low quality
Fig. 2Comparison of the macular hole closure rate in the face-down posturing group and nonsupine posturing group
Fig. 3Comparison of the macular hole closure rate with a size greater than 400 μm in the face-down posturing group and nonsupine posturing group
Fig. 4Comparison of the macular hole closure rate with the macular hole size smaller than 400 μm in the face-down posturing group and nonsupine posturing group
Comparison of macular hole closure rate between two groups with or without internal limiting membrane peeling
| Outcome | Type of subgroup | No. of studies | Sample size | With ILM Peeling | Without ILM Peeling |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Face-down group | No face-down group | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||||||||
| MH closure rate | Overall | 10 | 371 | 321 | 1.744 | 0.906 | 3.356 | 0.096 | 1.020 | 0.258 | 4.026 | 0.978 | Fixed-effect model |
| MH ≥ 400 μm | 6 | 107 | 101 | 2.489 | 1.021 | 6.069 | 0.045 | 0.080 | 0.044 | 14.643 | 0.880 | Fixed-effect model | |
| MH<400 μm | 6 | 115 | 110 | 3.572 | 0.547 | 23.331 | 0.184 | 0.235 | 0.009 | 6.401 | 0.390 | Fixed-effect model | |
MH Macular hole, ILM Internal limiting membrane, CI Confidence interval, OR Odds risk
Comparison of macular hole closure rate between two groups with or without phacovitrectomy with intraocular lens implant
| Outcome | Type of subgroup | No. of studies | Sample size | With phacovitrectomy with intraocular lens implant | Without phacovitrectomy with intraocular lens implant |
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Face-down group | No face-down group | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||||||||
| MH closure rate | Overall | 8 | 259 | 214 | 0.513 | 0.089 | 2.944 | 0.454 | 1.337 | 0.608 | 2.942 | 0.471 | Fixed-effect model |
| MH ≥ 400 μm | 5 | 66 | 62 | 0.539 | 0.063 | 4.629 | 0.573 | 1.702 | 0.533 | 5.438 | 0.370 | Fixed-effect model | |
| MH<400 μm | 5 | 78 | 77 | 1.417 | 0.279 | 7.192 | 0.390 | 3.360 | 0.363 | 36.346 | 0.273 | Fixed-effect model | |
MH Macular hole, CI Confidence interval, OR Odds risk
Fig. 5Comparison of the ideal visual acuity improvement rate in the face-down posturing group and nonsupine posturing group