Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2016
Incision and Curettage Versus Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Chalazia: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Aycinena Alicia R P, Achiron Asaf, Paul Michael, Burgansky-Eliash Zvia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of the chalazia treatment modalities of incision and curettage (I&C) and intralesional steroid injections (SI).
METHODS: Full publications of randomized controlled trials that compared I&C with SI were identified. Aggregated success rate, weighted summary proportions, and weighted pooled relative risk for success were calculated for each method.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 8 publications that met these criteria, between 1984 and 2013. There were 288 patients treated by SI with aggregate success rate of 60.4% with 1 injection and 72.5% with 1 or 2 injections. The range of the success rate was 8.7 to 86.7% for 1 injection. The success rate for the second SI was 19.0%, with a range of 0% to 53.8%. There were 264 patients treated by I&C with a larger aggregate success rate of 78.0% with 1 procedure and 86.7% with 1 or 2 procedures (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). The range of the success rates was 60.0% to 92.0% for 1 I&C. The success rate for the second I&C was 90.65%, with a range of 83.3% to 100%. Compared with I&C, the overall relative risk for SI with 1 procedure was 0.77 (p = 0.05), while the overall relative risk for 1 or 2 procedures was 0.89 (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that I&C is more effective than SI with 1 procedure. This benefit is reduced when comparing 1 or 2 attempts of I&C and SI. Studies failed to show a difference in the incidence of complications with either procedure.
METHODS: Full publications of randomized controlled trials that compared I&C with SI were identified. Aggregated success rate, weighted summary proportions, and weighted pooled relative risk for success were calculated for each method.
RESULTS: Data were extracted from 8 publications that met these criteria, between 1984 and 2013. There were 288 patients treated by SI with aggregate success rate of 60.4% with 1 injection and 72.5% with 1 or 2 injections. The range of the success rate was 8.7 to 86.7% for 1 injection. The success rate for the second SI was 19.0%, with a range of 0% to 53.8%. There were 264 patients treated by I&C with a larger aggregate success rate of 78.0% with 1 procedure and 86.7% with 1 or 2 procedures (p < 0.05 for both comparisons). The range of the success rates was 60.0% to 92.0% for 1 I&C. The success rate for the second I&C was 90.65%, with a range of 83.3% to 100%. Compared with I&C, the overall relative risk for SI with 1 procedure was 0.77 (p = 0.05), while the overall relative risk for 1 or 2 procedures was 0.89 (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that I&C is more effective than SI with 1 procedure. This benefit is reduced when comparing 1 or 2 attempts of I&C and SI. Studies failed to show a difference in the incidence of complications with either procedure.