Ophthalmology. Retina · 2025
Comparing Membrane Peeling Techniques in Lamellar Macular Hole Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Er-Reguyeg Yosra, Rhalem Elyazid, You Eunice Linh, Abu-Dieh Anas, Hébert Mélanie, Zhang Huixin, Bourgault Serge, Caissie Mathieu, Tourville Éric, Dirani Ali
Аннотация
TOPIC: To compare the outcomes of the standard (ST), flap embedding (FE), and fovea-sparing (FS) peeling techniques in lamellar macular hole (LMH) surgery.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lamellar macular hole surgery involves pars plana vitrectomy with epiretinal membrane or proliferation and internal limiting membrane peeling. Flap embedding and FS aim to improve outcomes and reduce complications, but no systematic review has yet compared ST, FE, and FS for LMH treatment.
METHODS: This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024547022). MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried from inception to January 2025. Pairwise meta-analysis (MA) compared mean differences (MD) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), LMH closure, and postoperative full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) rates between ST and FE; no comparative studies including FS were found. Meta-analysis of prevalence and means respectively assessed the prevalence of inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) defects and the mean change in central foveal thickness (CFT) for each peeling technique. Outcomes were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months when reported and at final follow-up (FU) for all studies.
RESULTS: Three peeling techniques were identified: ST (29 studies, 886 eyes), FS (3 studies, 64 eyes), and FE (8 studies, 196 eyes). In pairwise MA, FE was superior to ST in improving BCVA (n = 3 studies; MD -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31 to -0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; I2 = 0%; low certainty), LMH closure rate (n = 3 studies; risk ratios [RRs] 1.53; 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.90; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and postoperative FTMH rate (n = 2 studies; RR 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; low certainty) at final FU. The pooled mean change in CFT at final FU was 52.55 [95% CI: -10.57 to 115.67] μm (n = 4 studies; I2 = 93.1%; very low certainty) for the ST group, 83.12 [95% CI: 44.91 to 121.33] μm (n = 5 studies; I2 = 88.5%; very low certainty) for the FE group, and 102.28 [95% CI: -236.56 to 441.12] μm (n = 2 studies; I2 = 85.7%; very low certainty) for the FS group (P = 0.2709). Preoperative IS/OS defect prevalence in the "true" LMH subgroup showed no significant difference among techniques (P = 0.2242), but final FU prevalence differed significantly between ST, FS, and FE (P = 0.0005).
CONCLUSION: Flap embedding demonstrated superiority in BCVA improvement, LMH closure, and postoperative FTMH rates in pairwise MA; IS/OS postoperative defect proportion was higher in ST studies, but the paucity of comparative studies and very low to low certainty of evidence preclude definitive conclusions.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lamellar macular hole surgery involves pars plana vitrectomy with epiretinal membrane or proliferation and internal limiting membrane peeling. Flap embedding and FS aim to improve outcomes and reduce complications, but no systematic review has yet compared ST, FE, and FS for LMH treatment.
METHODS: This study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024547022). MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried from inception to January 2025. Pairwise meta-analysis (MA) compared mean differences (MD) in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), LMH closure, and postoperative full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) rates between ST and FE; no comparative studies including FS were found. Meta-analysis of prevalence and means respectively assessed the prevalence of inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) defects and the mean change in central foveal thickness (CFT) for each peeling technique. Outcomes were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months when reported and at final follow-up (FU) for all studies.
RESULTS: Three peeling techniques were identified: ST (29 studies, 886 eyes), FS (3 studies, 64 eyes), and FE (8 studies, 196 eyes). In pairwise MA, FE was superior to ST in improving BCVA (n = 3 studies; MD -0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31 to -0.09 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; I2 = 0%; low certainty), LMH closure rate (n = 3 studies; risk ratios [RRs] 1.53; 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.90; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and postoperative FTMH rate (n = 2 studies; RR 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; low certainty) at final FU. The pooled mean change in CFT at final FU was 52.55 [95% CI: -10.57 to 115.67] μm (n = 4 studies; I2 = 93.1%; very low certainty) for the ST group, 83.12 [95% CI: 44.91 to 121.33] μm (n = 5 studies; I2 = 88.5%; very low certainty) for the FE group, and 102.28 [95% CI: -236.56 to 441.12] μm (n = 2 studies; I2 = 85.7%; very low certainty) for the FS group (P = 0.2709). Preoperative IS/OS defect prevalence in the "true" LMH subgroup showed no significant difference among techniques (P = 0.2242), but final FU prevalence differed significantly between ST, FS, and FE (P = 0.0005).
CONCLUSION: Flap embedding demonstrated superiority in BCVA improvement, LMH closure, and postoperative FTMH rates in pairwise MA; IS/OS postoperative defect proportion was higher in ST studies, but the paucity of comparative studies and very low to low certainty of evidence preclude definitive conclusions.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.