Comparison of Chandelier-Assisted versus Standard Scleral Buckling for the Treatment of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmologica Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1159/000540820
Yung-Shuo Kao, Chia-Yun Chen, Yu-Te Huang, San-Ni Chen
{"title":"Comparison of Chandelier-Assisted versus Standard Scleral Buckling for the Treatment of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yung-Shuo Kao, Chia-Yun Chen, Yu-Te Huang, San-Ni Chen","doi":"10.1159/000540820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compare the anatomical and functional outcomes, operation duration, and complication rates between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2024. The primary endpoint will be set as a final success. The secondary endpoint will be primary success, operation time, and final BCVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis showed that there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB for the final success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97-1.03). For the primary success rate, there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.06). For operation time, our meta-analysis showed that the CSB group is less than the SSB group (pooled MD = -15.8, 95% CI = -22.60 to -9.00). For postoperative complications, our study shows that the CSB group presented with lower pooled risk than the SSB group (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). There is a trend that the ERM formation risk is higher in the CSB group if there is no routine suture for the sclerotomy (p = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CSB showcases a significantly reduced operation duration and less postoperative complication in contrast to the SSB group, maintaining comparable primary and ultimate anatomical success rates as well as final BCVA.</p>","PeriodicalId":19595,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540820","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Compare the anatomical and functional outcomes, operation duration, and complication rates between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2024. The primary endpoint will be set as a final success. The secondary endpoint will be primary success, operation time, and final BCVA.

Results: Our meta-analysis showed that there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB for the final success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97-1.03). For the primary success rate, there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.06). For operation time, our meta-analysis showed that the CSB group is less than the SSB group (pooled MD = -15.8, 95% CI = -22.60 to -9.00). For postoperative complications, our study shows that the CSB group presented with lower pooled risk than the SSB group (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). There is a trend that the ERM formation risk is higher in the CSB group if there is no routine suture for the sclerotomy (p = 0.08).

Conclusion: CSB showcases a significantly reduced operation duration and less postoperative complication in contrast to the SSB group, maintaining comparable primary and ultimate anatomical success rates as well as final BCVA.

治疗原发性风湿性视网膜脱离的吊灯辅助巩膜扣带术与标准巩膜扣带术的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。
简介:比较标准巩膜扣带术(SSB)和吊灯辅助巩膜扣带术(CSB)治疗流变性视网膜脱离(RRD)的解剖和功能结果、手术时间和并发症发生率。方法 检索从开始到 2024 年 6 月的 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 数据库。主要终点将设定为最终成功。次要终点为主要成功率、手术时间和最终 BCVA。结果 我们的荟萃分析表明,CSB 和 SSB 在最终成功率上没有统计学差异(RR=1.00,95%CI=0.97-1.03)。在初次成功率方面,CSB 和 SSB 没有统计学差异(RR=1.00,95%CI=0.94-1.06)。在手术时间方面,我们的荟萃分析显示 CSB 组少于 SSB 组(汇总 MD= -15.8,95%CI=-22.60- -9.00)。对于术后并发症,我们的研究显示,CSB 组的集合风险低于 SSB 组(RR=0.59,95%CI=0.41-0.89)。有一种趋势表明,如果硬膜切开术没有常规缝合,CSB 组 ERM 形成的风险更高(P=0.08)。结论 与 SSB 组相比,CSB 明显缩短了手术时间,减少了术后并发症,保持了相当的初次和最终解剖成功率以及最终 BCVA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ophthalmologica
Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
39
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Published since 1899, ''Ophthalmologica'' has become a frequently cited guide to international work in clinical and experimental ophthalmology. It contains a selection of patient-oriented contributions covering the etiology of eye diseases, diagnostic techniques, and advances in medical and surgical treatment. Straightforward, factual reporting provides both interesting and useful reading. In addition to original papers, ''Ophthalmologica'' features regularly timely reviews in an effort to keep the reader well informed and updated. The large international circulation of this journal reflects its importance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信