黄斑扣环、玻璃体切除或联合方法治疗黄斑孔视网膜脱离:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 5.7 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Jasmine Yaowei Ge, Alvin Wei Jun Teo, Andrew S H Tsai, Gavin Siew Wei Tan, Shu Yen Lee, Ning Cheung, Wei-Chi Wu, Yih-Shiou Hwang, Chi-Chun Lai, Hung-Da Chou
{"title":"黄斑扣环、玻璃体切除或联合方法治疗黄斑孔视网膜脱离:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Jasmine Yaowei Ge, Alvin Wei Jun Teo, Andrew S H Tsai, Gavin Siew Wei Tan, Shu Yen Lee, Ning Cheung, Wei-Chi Wu, Yih-Shiou Hwang, Chi-Chun Lai, Hung-Da Chou","doi":"10.1016/j.oret.2025.08.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Topic: </strong>There is no consensus regarding management of macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD). Techniques such as trans pars plana vitrectomy (TPPV), macular buckle (MB), and combined approach have been described.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>To review anatomical and functional outcomes of different surgical interventions for MHRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42024586953). Literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial databases for randomized controlled trials or retrospective comparative studies reporting MHRD outcomes until February 15, 2025. Retinal reattachment rates, macular hole closure rates, functional outcomes, and complications were assessed. Frequentist Meta-Analysis of Proportions and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis were conducted. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions 2.0 tool and Risk of Bias Tool 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies and 308 eyes were analyzed. Retinal reattachment rates were significantly higher in combined (96.9%) and MB (96.2%) versus vitrectomy (66.9%). There was no significant difference between combined and MB (P = 0.802; risk ratio [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.12; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE], moderate certainty, 4 studies, 173 eyes), whereas TPPV did significantly worse relative to MB (P < 0.001; RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00; GRADE, moderate certainty, 4 studies, 233 eyes). Macular hole closure rates were highest in the combined group (86.0%; MB, 58.4%; and TPPV, 46.3%); (Combined vs. MB: P = 0.148; RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.88-1.61; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00%; GRADE, moderate certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 173 eyes); (Vitrectomy vs. MB: P = 0.158; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.40-1.05; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00%; GRADE, low certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 233 eyes). The postoperative visual acuity improvements for MB, combined, and TPPV were a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of 0.533, 0.510, and 0.434, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that procedures involving MB was associated with better retinal reattachment rates in managing MHRD with moderate certainty. Further studies are required to evaluate macular hole closure rates, visual outcomes, and retinal reattachment rates after a combined procedure.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":19501,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Retina","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Macular Buckle, Vitrectomy, or Combined Approach for the Management of Macular Hole Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jasmine Yaowei Ge, Alvin Wei Jun Teo, Andrew S H Tsai, Gavin Siew Wei Tan, Shu Yen Lee, Ning Cheung, Wei-Chi Wu, Yih-Shiou Hwang, Chi-Chun Lai, Hung-Da Chou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.oret.2025.08.020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Topic: </strong>There is no consensus regarding management of macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD). Techniques such as trans pars plana vitrectomy (TPPV), macular buckle (MB), and combined approach have been described.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>To review anatomical and functional outcomes of different surgical interventions for MHRD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42024586953). Literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial databases for randomized controlled trials or retrospective comparative studies reporting MHRD outcomes until February 15, 2025. Retinal reattachment rates, macular hole closure rates, functional outcomes, and complications were assessed. Frequentist Meta-Analysis of Proportions and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis were conducted. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions 2.0 tool and Risk of Bias Tool 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies and 308 eyes were analyzed. Retinal reattachment rates were significantly higher in combined (96.9%) and MB (96.2%) versus vitrectomy (66.9%). There was no significant difference between combined and MB (P = 0.802; risk ratio [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.12; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE], moderate certainty, 4 studies, 173 eyes), whereas TPPV did significantly worse relative to MB (P < 0.001; RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00; GRADE, moderate certainty, 4 studies, 233 eyes). Macular hole closure rates were highest in the combined group (86.0%; MB, 58.4%; and TPPV, 46.3%); (Combined vs. MB: P = 0.148; RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.88-1.61; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00%; GRADE, moderate certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 173 eyes); (Vitrectomy vs. MB: P = 0.158; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.40-1.05; τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.00%; GRADE, low certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 233 eyes). The postoperative visual acuity improvements for MB, combined, and TPPV were a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of 0.533, 0.510, and 0.434, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that procedures involving MB was associated with better retinal reattachment rates in managing MHRD with moderate certainty. Further studies are required to evaluate macular hole closure rates, visual outcomes, and retinal reattachment rates after a combined procedure.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology. Retina\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology. Retina\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2025.08.020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Retina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2025.08.020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于黄斑孔视网膜脱离(MHRD)的治疗尚无共识。技术,如经平面玻璃体切除术(TPPV),黄斑扣(MB),和联合入路已被描述。临床意义:回顾不同手术治疗MHRD的解剖和功能结果。方法:按照PRISMA指南(PROSPERO注册号CRD42024586953)进行系统文献综述。文献检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆数据库和临床试验数据库,检索截至2025年2月15日报告MHRD结果的随机对照试验或回顾性比较研究。评估视网膜再附着率、黄斑孔闭合率、功能结局和并发症。采用频率元分析及贝叶斯网络元分析(NMA)。采用Cochrane的ROBINS-I V2工具和rob2工具评估研究质量。结果:分析5项研究,308只眼。与玻璃体切除术(66.9%)相比,联合手术(96.9%)和MB(96.2%)的视网膜再附着率显著高于玻璃体切除术(66.9%)。联合治疗与MB无显著性差异(p = 0.802; RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94 ~ 1.12; Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00; GRADE -中度确定性,4项研究,173只眼),而TPPV治疗相对于MB有显著性差(p < 0.001; RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 ~ 0.79; Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00; GRADE -中度确定性,4项研究,233只眼)。联合组黄斑孔闭合率最高(86.0%,MB, 58.4%, TPPV, 46.3%);(联合vs MB: p = 0.148, RR 1.24, 95% CI: 0.88 ~ 1.61; Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE,中度证据确定性,4项研究,173只眼);(玻璃体切除术与MB: p = 0.158; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.40 ~ 1.05; Tau2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE,低证据确定性,4项研究,233只眼)。术后MB组、联合组和TPPV组的视力改善logMAR分别为0.533、0.510和0.434。结论:我们的研究发现,与单独的TPPV相比,涉及MB的手术在治疗MHRD时具有更好的视网膜再附着率,且具有中等确定性。需要进一步的研究来评估联合手术后黄斑孔闭合率、视力结果和视网膜再附着率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Macular Buckle, Vitrectomy, or Combined Approach for the Management of Macular Hole Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Topic: There is no consensus regarding management of macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD). Techniques such as trans pars plana vitrectomy (TPPV), macular buckle (MB), and combined approach have been described.

Clinical relevance: To review anatomical and functional outcomes of different surgical interventions for MHRD.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number CRD42024586953). Literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial databases for randomized controlled trials or retrospective comparative studies reporting MHRD outcomes until February 15, 2025. Retinal reattachment rates, macular hole closure rates, functional outcomes, and complications were assessed. Frequentist Meta-Analysis of Proportions and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis were conducted. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions 2.0 tool and Risk of Bias Tool 2.

Results: Five studies and 308 eyes were analyzed. Retinal reattachment rates were significantly higher in combined (96.9%) and MB (96.2%) versus vitrectomy (66.9%). There was no significant difference between combined and MB (P = 0.802; risk ratio [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.12; τ2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE], moderate certainty, 4 studies, 173 eyes), whereas TPPV did significantly worse relative to MB (P < 0.001; RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79; τ2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00; GRADE, moderate certainty, 4 studies, 233 eyes). Macular hole closure rates were highest in the combined group (86.0%; MB, 58.4%; and TPPV, 46.3%); (Combined vs. MB: P = 0.148; RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.88-1.61; τ2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE, moderate certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 173 eyes); (Vitrectomy vs. MB: P = 0.158; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.40-1.05; τ2 = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%; GRADE, low certainty of evidence, 4 studies, 233 eyes). The postoperative visual acuity improvements for MB, combined, and TPPV were a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of 0.533, 0.510, and 0.434, respectively.

Conclusion: Our study found that procedures involving MB was associated with better retinal reattachment rates in managing MHRD with moderate certainty. Further studies are required to evaluate macular hole closure rates, visual outcomes, and retinal reattachment rates after a combined procedure.

Financial disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Retina
Ophthalmology. Retina Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
33 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信