Dataset Information

Epiretinal Membrane Vitrectomy With and Without Intraoperative Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of vitrectomy combined with intravitreal dexamethasone implant vs. vitrectomy without the implant in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Studies that compared ERM vitrectomy with and without intraoperative dexamethasone implant with a follow-up ≥3 months were included. The primary outcome was mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change between eyes undergoing ERM vitrectomy combined with dexamethasone implant (DEX group) and eyes undergoing ERM vitrectomy alone (control group) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included mean BCVA change at 6 months and mean optical coherence tomography central macular thickness (CMT) change at both 3-months and 6-months follow-up. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated. Meta-analyses were based either on random effect model or fixed effect model according to heterogeneity. Results: Four studies were included. At 3 months, ERM vitrectomy combined with dexamethasone implant yielded a greater visual gain compared to vitrectomy alone (MD = 9.7; 95%CI = 2.6-16.8; p = 0.01). However, significant heterogeneity was found. A sensitivity analysis excluding the only retrospective non-randomized study confirmed a greater visual gain in the DEX group (MD = 7.1; 95%CI = 2.7-11.6; p < 0.01), with no heterogeneity. At 6 months, a non-significant but borderline difference in visual gain was shown between in the two groups (MD = 5.1; 95%CI = -0.3-10.5; p = 0.06), with no heterogeneity. Three-month analysis of CMT revealed a greater reduction in the DEX group (MD = -80.2; 95%CI =-149.1-11.2; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis excluding the only retrospective non-randomized study allowed to reduce heterogeneity, but no difference in 3-months CMT change was found between the two groups (MD = -50.0; 95%CI = -106.2-6.2; p = 0.08). At 6 months, no difference in CMT change was shown between the two groups (MD = -48.5; 95%CI = -120.5-23.5; p = 0.19), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Intraoperative dexamethasone implant in eyes undergoing vitrectomy for ERM provided a better visual outcome at 3 months compared to ERM vitrectomy without the implant, with limited evidence of better anatomic outcome as well. Further studies are needed to ascertain whether dexamethasone implant would ensure a significant long-term visual benefit as a result of a faster reduction of macular thickening.

SUBMITTER: Fallico M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082723 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and retinal detachment (RD) by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis of published studies.MethodsStudies reporting clinical outcomes of DEX use for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy were searched on PubMed and Embase databases. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change between baseline and post-DEX treatment, reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mean central macular thickness (CMT) change was assessed as a secondary outcome. Postimplant adverse events, including intraocular pressure rise and cataract development, were reported as well.ResultsFive uncontrolled studies, 1 nonrandomized controlled study, and 1 randomized controlled study were included, with a total of 5 cohorts and 3 cohorts in the ERM group and RD group, respectively. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant improvement in postimplant BCVA was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = -0.28, 95% CI = -0.37, -0.20; p < 0.001), but with significant heterogeneity. In either group, mean BCVA significantly improved following the implant (in the ERM group, MD = -0.31, 95% CI = -0.40, -0.22; in the RD group, MD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.41, -0.03), with no difference between the two groups (p=0.41). However, there was significant heterogeneity in both groups. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant CMT reduction was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = -129.75, 95% CI = -157.49, -102.01; p < 0.001). In the ERM group, a significant CMT reduction was shown following DEX (MD = -133.41, 95% CI = -155.37, -111.45; p < 0.001), with no heterogeneity. In the RD group, mean CMT reduction was borderline significant (MD = -128.37, 95% CI = -253.57, -3.18; p=0.040), with significant heterogeneity. No difference in CMT improvement was found between the two groups (p=0.94).ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that DEX yielded a significant improvement in visual and anatomical outcomes, even if limited by significant heterogeneity. Dexamethasone implant represents an effective treatment for postoperative macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) have yielded uncertain results regarding clinical outcomes and recurrence rates.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling for idiopathic ERM.MethodsDatabases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI databases, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov, published until July 2016, were searched to identify studies comparing the clinical outcomes following vitrectomy with ERM and ILM peeling and with only ERM peeling, for treating idiopathic ERM. Studies with sufficient data were selected. Pooled results were expressed as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vitrectomy with and without ILM peeling with regard to postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and ERM recurrence rate.ResultsEleven retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 756 eyes were identified. This demonstrated that the postoperative BCVA within 12 months was significantly better in the non-ILM peeling group (MD = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.0460), but that the patients in the ILM peeling group had significantly better postoperative BCVA after 18 months (MD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.04; P = 0.0049) than did those in the non-ILM peeling group. The non-ILM peeling group exhibited a higher reduction in postoperative CRT (MD = 51.55, 95% CI:-84.23 to -18.88; P = 0.0020) and a higher recurrence rate of ERM (RR = 0.34, 95% CI:0.16 to 0.72; P = 0.0048) than did the ILM peeling group. However, the improvement rates of BCVA (RR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.72 to 1.47; P = 0.8802) and postoperative CRTs (MD = 18.15, 95% CI:-2.29 to 38.60; P = 0.0818) were similar between the two groups.ConclusionsVitrectomy with ILM peeling results in better visual improvement in long-term follow-ups and lower ERM recurrence rates, and vitrectomy with only ERM peeling is more efficacious in reduction of CRT than is vitrectomy with ILM peeling.

Project description:Diabetic macular edema (DME) resembles a chronic, low-grade inflammatory reaction, and is characterized by blood-retinal barrier (BRB) breakdown and retinal capillary leakage. Corticosteroids are of therapeutic benefit because of their anti-inflammatory, antiangiogenic, and BRB-stabilizing properties. Delivery modes include periocular and intravitreal (via pars plana) injection. To offset the short intravitreal half-life of corticosteroid solutions (~3 hours) and the need for frequent intravitreal injections, sustained-release intravitreal corticosteroid implants have been developed. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant provides retinal drug delivery for ?6 months and recently has been approved for use in the treatment of DME. Pooled findings (n=1,048) from two large-scale, randomized Phase III trials indicated that dexamethasone intravitreal implant (0.35 mg and 0.7 mg) administered at ?6-month intervals produced sustained improvements in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular edema. Significantly more patients showed a ?15-letter gain in BCVA at 3 years with dexamethasone intravitreal implant 0.35 mg and 0.7 mg than with sham injection (18.4% and 22.2% vs 12.0%). Anatomical assessments showed rapid and sustained reductions in macular edema and slowing of retinopathy progression. Phase II study findings suggest that dexamethasone intravitreal implant is effective in focal, cystoid, and diffuse DME, in vitrectomized eyes, and in combination with laser therapy. Ocular complications of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in Phase III trials included cataract-related events (66.0% in phakic patients), intraocular pressure elevation ?25 mmHg (29.7%), conjunctival hemorrhage (23.5%), vitreous hemorrhage (10.0%), macular fibrosis (8.3%), conjunctival hyperemia (7.2%), eye pain (6.1%), vitreous detachment (5.8%), and dry eye (5.8%); injection-related complications (eg, retinal tear/detachment, vitreous loss, endophthalmitis) were infrequent (<2%). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant offers a viable treatment option for DME, especially in cases that are persistent or treatment (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor/laser) refractory.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough previously published meta-analyses have compared the surgical effects between the methods of Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal with or without ILM peeling, they did not reach an agreement.PurposeWe aimed to provide more evidence for the treatment of iERM and whether additional ILM peeling was better or not by analyzing more updated studies and randomized control trials (RCTs).MethodThe search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Open Grey without language limitation and the studies included were from inception to December 2019. All studies of iERM with or without ILM peeling showed at least one of outcomes, such as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and recurrence of ERM. The pooled results between above groups were showed by the mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultIn total, 1645 eyes of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and fifteen retrospective studies were included. The short-term (<12 months) BCVA improvement in both groups showed no significant difference (MD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01; P = 0.36). However, the BCVA improvement was significantly better in ILM peeling eyes than in those without ILM peeling when considering the risk bias (MD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.07 to -0.01; P = 0.008). The short-term (<12 months) CMT had a higher reduction in non ILM peeling group (MD = -9.02; 95% CI = -12.51 to -5.54; P < 0.00001) and the recurrence of ERM in ILM peeling group was lower (P < 0.00001). The long-term (≥12months) BCVA improvement ((MD = -0.00; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.03; P = 0.97) and reduction of long-term (≥12months) CMT (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = -7.14 to -4.86; P = 0.71) were similar in both groups.ConclusionBy considering the risk of bias, we should determine whether ILM peeling is beneficial for short-term changes in BCVA in patients with iERM. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to confirm this. iERM removal without ILM peeling can improve the short-term decrease in CMT and ILM peeling decreases the recurrence of ERM, but the long-term changes in BCVA and CMT are similar with or without ILM peeling. There is a need for a true large scale randomized trial that will also include microperimetry and other functional measures.

Dataset Information

Epiretinal Membrane Vitrectomy With and Without Intraoperative Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets