The Comparison of the Surgical Outcome for the Full-Thickness Macular Hole with/without Lamellar Hole-Associated Epiretinal Proliferation

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: To compare the visual outcomes and rate of restored ellipsoid zone (REZ) after surgery of lamellar macular hole (LMH) with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP). Method: Publications up to November 2019 that compared the outcomes of LMH patients with and without LHEP who were managed by surgery were included. Forest plots were created using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. A random effects mode was used and I2 heterogeneity estimates were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis.Result:Four pertinent publications studying a total of 157 patients with 99 eyes without LHEP and 58 eyes with LHEP were identified. They were all retrospective studies and had a mean follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) had no significant differences before surgery and improved in both groups, and in two studies the post-operative BCVA had no significant differences between two groups. The rate of restored ellipsoid zone (REZ) was different among studies included. Meta-analytic pooling of the improved BCVA between with and without LHEP groups was 0.15 (95 % CI, 0.02 to 0.27; P=0.02), and the pooled data revealed an odd ratio of 2.67 (95% CI, 0.50 to 14.25; p = 0.25) in the rate of REZ, comparing the group without LHEP and the group with LHEP.Conclusion: Patients without LHEP had better postoperative BCVA than patients with LHEP, while no significant difference was found in REZ among the two groups.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…By reading the titles and abstracts, 10 researches related to LHEP and surgery outcomes were reserved. Two studies included patients with FTMH were excluded [8,9], and a study recruited LMH patients with high myopia was also excluded [10]. Meanwhile, two study with incomplete information were excluded [11,12].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Available Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery Outcomes of Lamellar Macular Eyes with or without Lamellar Hole-Associated Epiretinal Proliferation: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

Preprint

“…By reading the titles and abstracts, 14 papers on LHEP reporting surgical outcomes were identified. Then, the full texts of all articles were read, and 6 of them were discarded because they included patients with FTMH [8,9], recruited LMH patients with high myopia [10], had incomplete information [11,12] or were an observational study without surgery [3]. Finally, eight studies with 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Available Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery outcomes of lamellar macular eyes with or without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation: a meta-analysis

et al. 2020

BMC Ophthalmol

Background: Given the two different kinds of epiretinal membranes, this study aimed to compare both the structural and functional outcomes of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) after surgery. Method: Publications up to July 2020 that compared the surgical outcomes of lamellar macular hole with and without LHEP were included. Forest plots were created by using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Fixed or random effects models were used on the basis of I2 heterogeneity estimates. Meanwhile, to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis was carried out. Results: Eight pertinent publications that contained a total of 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included. They were all retrospective studies and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the preoperative best corrected visual acuity showed no significant differences between the two groups, and the visual acuity improved in both groups after surgery. The pooled result for the improved best corrected visual acuity was 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.26; P < 0.01) between the with and without LHEP groups. The restored ellipsoid zone odds ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.26 to 2.44; P = 0.69) for the group with LHEP compared to the group without LHEP. Conclusion: Patients without LHEP had better postoperative visual acuity than patients with LHEP. No significant difference in restored ellipsoid zone was found between the two groups.

“…Besides, previous studies also indicated that LMH or FTMH eyes with LHEP had worse visual outcomes after surgery [8,13,14,24], probably attributable to the severer destruction of the retina in eyes with LHEP than without LHEP. However, there are also some studies reported similar surgery outcomes of eyes with and without LHEP [10,12,15,16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By reading the titles and abstracts, 14 papers on LHEP reporting surgical outcomes were identi ed. Then, the full texts of all articles were read and 6 of them were discarded because they included patients with FTMH [8,9], recruited LMH patients with high myopia [10], had incomplete information [11,12] or was an observational study without surgery [3]. Finally, eight studies with 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Available Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgery Outcomes of Lamellar Macular Eyes with or without Lamellar Hole-Associated Epiretinal Proliferation: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Given the two different kinds of epiretinal membranes, this study aimed to compare both the structural and functional outcomes of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) after surgery.Method: Publications up to July 2020 that compared the surgical outcomes of lamellar macular hole with and without LHEP were included. Forest plots were created by using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Fixed or random effects models were used on the basis of I2 heterogeneity estimates. Meanwhile, to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis was carried out.Results: Eight pertinent publications that contained a total of 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included. They were all retrospective studies and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the preoperative best corrected visual acuity showed no significant differences between the two groups, and the visual acuity improved in both groups after surgery. The pooled result for the improved best corrected visual acuity was 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.26; P< 0.01) between the with and without LHEP groups. The restored ellipsoid zone odds ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.26 to 2.44; P= 0.69) for the group with LHEP compared to the group without LHEP.Conclusion: Patients without LHEP had better postoperative visual acuity than patients with LHEP. No significant difference in restored ellipsoid zone was found between the two groups.