American journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Comparison of Three Intraocular Lens Implantation Procedures for Aphakic Eyes With Insufficient Capsular Support: A Network Meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Xi, Ni Shuang, Li Shuyi, Zheng Qianyin, Wu Jing, Liang Guanlu, Xu Wen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and main complications of transscleral-fixated (TSF), intrascleral-fixated (ISF), and iris-fixated (IF) intraocular lenses (IOLs).
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles up to April 2017 with no language restrictions, and related studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. A Bayesian framework was applied to compare the visual outcomes and complications of these 3 approaches.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies with 845 eyes were included in the present report. There was no significant difference between any pair of surgical approaches in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in final BCVA achieving 20/40 or better (Snellen). ISF presented a lower risk of cystoid macular edema (CME) compared with TSF (risk ratio [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], [0.18, 1.0]). IF showed superiorities in less intraocular hemorrhage (IOH) than ISF (RR, 0.078; 95% CI [0.0095, 0.38]), as well as TSF (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, [0.09, 0.72]). IF had a lower risk of glaucoma escalation; the difference was slightly higher than the conventional level of significance (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, [0.16, 1.04]). Moreover, the surgical time in IF was shorter than TSF (standard mean difference [SMD], -2.98; 95% CI, [-4.32, -1.64]) and ISF (SMD, -2.60; 95% CI, [-3.71, -1.49]). However, IF was associated with a significantly higher risk of endothelial cell density (ECD) impairment (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, [-1.02, -0.05]) and significantly greater postoperative corneal endothelial cell loss rate (ECLR, %) (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, [0.08, 0.63]) compared with TSF.
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative visual outcomes were comparable among TSF, ISF, and IF for eyes with insufficient capsular support. However, the risk of some complications differed among approaches. IF showed its superiorities in lower risk of IOH and glaucoma escalation as well as shorter surgical time, while IF was at a disadvantage in greater endothelial cell impairment. Since some patients might have a clear contraindication to one of the surgical approaches, the decision of surgical approach eventually depends on surgeon experience and the presenting pathology.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles up to April 2017 with no language restrictions, and related studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. A Bayesian framework was applied to compare the visual outcomes and complications of these 3 approaches.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies with 845 eyes were included in the present report. There was no significant difference between any pair of surgical approaches in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in final BCVA achieving 20/40 or better (Snellen). ISF presented a lower risk of cystoid macular edema (CME) compared with TSF (risk ratio [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], [0.18, 1.0]). IF showed superiorities in less intraocular hemorrhage (IOH) than ISF (RR, 0.078; 95% CI [0.0095, 0.38]), as well as TSF (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, [0.09, 0.72]). IF had a lower risk of glaucoma escalation; the difference was slightly higher than the conventional level of significance (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, [0.16, 1.04]). Moreover, the surgical time in IF was shorter than TSF (standard mean difference [SMD], -2.98; 95% CI, [-4.32, -1.64]) and ISF (SMD, -2.60; 95% CI, [-3.71, -1.49]). However, IF was associated with a significantly higher risk of endothelial cell density (ECD) impairment (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, [-1.02, -0.05]) and significantly greater postoperative corneal endothelial cell loss rate (ECLR, %) (SMD, 0.35; 95% CI, [0.08, 0.63]) compared with TSF.
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative visual outcomes were comparable among TSF, ISF, and IF for eyes with insufficient capsular support. However, the risk of some complications differed among approaches. IF showed its superiorities in lower risk of IOH and glaucoma escalation as well as shorter surgical time, while IF was at a disadvantage in greater endothelial cell impairment. Since some patients might have a clear contraindication to one of the surgical approaches, the decision of surgical approach eventually depends on surgeon experience and the presenting pathology.