IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Fallico
  • Andrea Russo
  • Antonio Longo
  • Alfredo Pulvirenti
  • Teresio Avitabile
  • Vincenza Bonfiglio
  • Niccolò Castellino
  • Gilda Cennamo
  • Michele Reibaldi

Abstract

Background: Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) prevents the formation of postoperative macular epiretinal membrane (ERM). However, studies that compared vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD, have reported controversial outcomes. Objective: To assess the efficacy of ILM peeling versus non-ILM peeling during vitrectomy for RRD by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 2018 to identify studies that compared primary vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for RRD with at least six months follow-up. Primary outcomes were the rate of postoperative ERM formation and mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change after vitrectomy. Rate of recurrence of retinal detachment (RD) was assessed as secondary outcome. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) expressed pooled results for rate of ERM formation and rate of RD recurrence in ILM peeling and non-ILM peeling groups. Pooled results for BCVA change in the two groups were expressed as Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. Results: Nine studies, one of which was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a total number of 404 eyes in the ILM peeling group and 365 eyes in the non-ILM peeling group, were included. The analysis from pooled data indicated a significant lower rate of postoperative ERM formation in the ILM peeling group compared to the non-ILM peeling group (9 studies, 769 eyes, RR = 0.14; CI: 0.07 to 0.28; P

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Fallico & Andrea Russo & Antonio Longo & Alfredo Pulvirenti & Teresio Avitabile & Vincenza Bonfiglio & Niccolò Castellino & Gilda Cennamo & Michele Reibaldi, 2018. "Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201010
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201010&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wei-Cheng Chang & Chin Lin & Cho-Hao Lee & Tzu-Ling Sung & Tao-Hsin Tung & Jorn-Hon Liu, 2017. "Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qinying Huang & Jinying Li, 2021. "With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.