内界膜剥除术对比不剥除术治疗特发性黄斑前膜的疗效的Meta分析

doi:DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.06.005

摘要
图/表
参考文献(17)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 1107KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要

目的系统评价单纯黄斑前膜剥除术与黄斑前膜剥除联合黄斑区内界膜剥除术治疗特发性黄斑前膜的疗效。方法循证医学研究。计算机检索美国国立医学图书馆、荷兰医学文摘、循证医学数据库、中国期刊全文数据库等数据库。按照纳入标准及排除标准对检索文献进行筛选，对纳入文献进行Downs & Black评分。连续变量以加权均数差（WMD）作为效应尺度，分类变量以比值比（OR）作为效应尺度，提取各组相应资料后运用Revman 5.0软件进行异质性分析并进行合并分析。用倒漏斗图对发表偏倚进行检测。结果共纳入8项对照研究，共417眼，其中黄斑前膜联合黄斑区内界膜剥除术200眼（联合组），单纯黄斑前膜剥除术217眼（单纯组）。Meta分析结果显示：①最佳矫正视力（BCVA，logMAR）：治疗后3个月，单纯组术后BCVA优于联合组，差异有统计学意义[WMD=0.16，95%CI（0.02， 0.29），P<0.05]；治疗后半年以上[WMD=-0.06，95%CI（-0.15，0.03），P>0.05]和1年以上[WMD=0.04，95%CI（-0.02，0.09），P>0.05]，2组BCVA差异无统计学意义。2组治疗半年以上视力无下降比例比较，差异无统计学意义[WMD=1.37，95%CI（0.40，4.76），P>0.05]。②黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度：治疗后3个月[WMD=20.42，95%CI（-1.50，42.35），P>0.05]和1年以上[WMD=12.37，95%CI（-11.29，36.04），P>0.05] 2组黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度比较差异无统计学意义；但治疗半年以上时，联合组的黄斑中心凹视网膜厚度大于单纯组，差异有统计学意义[WMD=26.43，95%CI（8.12，44.75），P<0.05]。③黄斑前膜复发率：单纯组高于联合组，差异有统计学意义[WMD=0.20，95%CI（0.07，0.61），P<0.05]。结论与单纯黄斑前膜剥除术相比，黄斑前膜联合黄斑区内界膜剥除术用于治疗特发性黄斑前膜在改善术后视力及黄斑中心凹厚度方面并无优势，但可以显著降低黄斑前膜的复发率。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	吕喆
	陶继伟
	王奇骅
	许维馨
	吴素兰
	吴少娟
	沈丽君

关键词 ：视网膜前膜, 内界膜, 黄斑, 玻璃体切除术

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Methods Meta-analysis study. Searches were conducted in Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for further analysis. The Downs & Black score was used for quality and comparability assessment, and the meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software. Results Eight studies in the literature were selected for meta-analysis, including a total of 417 eyes: one group had undergone epiretinal membrane (ERM) removal with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (200 eyes) and the other group had undergone ERM removal alone (217 eyes). The results of the meta-analysis showed the following: ①Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA): The group that underwent ERM removal alone had better BCVA at the postsurgical follow-up after 3 months compared with the group that underwent ERM removal with ILM peeling [WMD=0.16, 95%CI(0.02, 0.29), P<0.05]. There were no significant differences in BCVA between the two groups at the postsurgical follow-up after at least 6 months [WMD=-0.06, 95%CI(-0.15, 0.03), P>0.05] and BCVA at the postsurgical follow-up after at least one year [WMD=0.04, 95%CI(-0.02, 0.09), P>0.05]. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of people who did not have decreased vision at the postsurgical follow-up after at least 6 months [WMD=1.37, 95%CI(0.40, 4.76), P>0.05]. ②Central macular thickness: The central macula was thicker in the group that underwent ERM removal with ILM peeling when compared with the group that underwent ERM removal alone at the postsurgical follow-up after at least 6 months [WMD=26.43, 95%CI(8.12, 44.75), P<0.05]. There were no significant differences in central macular thickness between the two groups at the postsurgical follow-up after 3 months [WMD=20.42, 95%CI(-1.50, 42.35), P>0.05] and after at least one year [WMD=12.37, 95%CI(-11.29, 36.04), P>0.05]. ③The recurrence rate of the macular ERM: The group that underwent ERM removal alone showed a higher recurrence rate than the group that underwent ERM removal with ILM peeling [WMD=0.20, 95%CI(0.07, 0.61), P<0.05]. Conclusion Compared with the group that underwent ERM removal alone, the group that underwent ERM removal with ILM peeling has no advantages in the improvement of BCVA and the reduction in central macular thickness, but ILM peeling significantly reduces the recurrence rate of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane.

Key words： Epiretinal membrane Internal limiting membrane Macula lutea Vitrectomy

收稿日期: 2015-10-12

通讯作者: 沈丽君，Email：slj@mail.eye.ac.cn

引用本文:

吕喆,陶继伟,王奇骅,许维馨,吴素兰,吴少娟,沈丽君. 内界膜剥除术对比不剥除术治疗特发性黄斑前膜的疗效的Meta分析[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2016, 18(6): 340-346. Lyu Zhe,Tao Jiwei,Wang Qihua,Xu Weixin,Wu Sulan,Wu Shaojuan,Shen Lijun. A meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling . Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2016, 18(6): 340-346.

链接本文:

http://www.cjoovs.com/CN/DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.06.005 或 http://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2016/V18/I6/340

[1]	Donati G, Kapetanios AD, Pournaras CJ. Complications of surgery for epiretinal membranes[J]. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol,1998,236(10):739-746. DOI:10.1007/s004170050152.
[2]	Kwok AK, Lai TY, Li WW, et al. Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane removal in epiretinal membrane surgery: a clinical and histologic study[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2004,138(2):194-199. DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.03.013.
[3]	Sorcinelli R. Surgical management of epiretinal membrane with indocyanine-green-assisted peeling[J]. Ophthalmologica,2003,217(2):107-110. DOI:org/10.1159/000068556.
[4]	Nakamura T, Murata T, Hisatomi T, et al. Ultrastructure of the vitreoretinal interface following the removal of the internal limiting membrane using indocyanine green[J]. Curr Eye Res,2003,27(6):395-399. DOI:10.1076/ceyr.27.6.395.18189.
[5]	Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care inter ventions[J]. J Epidemiol Community Health,1998,52(6):377-384. DOI:org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377.
[6]	Lee JW, Kim IT. Outcomes of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: a comparative study[J]. Jpn J Ophthalmol,2010,54(2):129-134. DOI:10.1007/s10384-009-0778-0.
[7]	Oh HN, Lee JE, Kim HW, et al. Clinical outcomes of double staining and additional ILM peeling during ERM surgery[J]. Korean J Ophthalmol,2013,27(4):256-260. DOI:10.3341/kjo.2013. 27.4.256.
[8]	Pournaras CJ, Emarah A, Petropoulos IK. Idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane surgery and ILM peeling: anatomical and functional outcomes[J]. Semin Ophthalmol,2011,26(2):42-46. DOI:10.3109/08820538.2010.544237.
[9]	Kwok AKh, Lai TY, Yuen KS. Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling[J]. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol,2005,33(4):379-385. DOI:org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2005. 01015.x.
	[10] Park DW, Dugel PU, Garda J, et al. Macular pucker removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: pilot study[J]. Ophthalmology,2003,110(1):62-64. DOI:org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01440-9.
	[11] Ahn SJ, Ahn J, Woo SJ, et al. Photoreceptor change and visual outcome after idiopathic epiretinal membrane removal with or without additional internal limiting membrane peeling[J]. Retina,2014,34(1):172-181. DOI:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318295f798.
	[12] Ripandelli G, Scarinci F, Piaggi P, et al. Macular pucker: to peel or not to peel the internal limiting membrane? A microperimetric response[J]. Retina,2015,35(3):498-507. DOI:10. 1097/IAE.0000000000000330.
	[13] 王泓,张平,陈凤娥,等. 23G玻璃体切割手术联合与不联合内界膜剥除治疗特发性黄斑前膜的疗效对比观察[J]. 中华眼底病杂志,2014,30(4):361-365. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1015.2014.04.007.
	[14] Kim CY, Lee JH, Lee SJ, et al. Visual field defect caused by nerve fiber layer damage associated with an internal limiting lamina defect after uneventful epiretinal membrane surgery[J]. Am J Ophthalmol,2002,133(4):569-571. DOI:org/10.1016/S0002-9394(01)01361-7.
	[15] Kifuku K, Hata Y, Kohno RI, et al. Residual internal limiting membrane in epiretinal membrane surgery[J]. Br J Ophthalmol,2009,93(8):1016-1019. DOI:10.1136/bjo.2008.150623.
	[16] Kumagai K, Ogino N, Furukawa M, et al. Retinal thickness after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling for macular hole and epiretinal membrane[J]. Clin Ophthalmol,2012, 6:679-688. DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S30288.
	[17] Rivett K, Kruger L, Radloff S. Infracyanine-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole repair: Does it make a difference?[J]. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol,2004,242(5): 393-396. DOI:org/10.1007/s00417-003-0857-8.