4.3 Review

Internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade for myopic foveoschisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-017-0562-8

Keywords

Internal limiting membrane peeling; Tamponade; Myopic foveoschisis; Systematic review

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Myopic foveoschisis (MF) is among the leading causes of visual loss in high myopia. However, it remains controversial whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling or gas tamponade is necessary treatment option for MF. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG DATA and VIP databases were systematically reviewed. Outcome indicators were myopic foveoschisis resolution rate, visual acuity improvement and postoperative complications. Results: Nine studies that included 239 eyes were selected. The proportion of resolution of foveoschisis was higher in ILM peeling group than non-ILM peeling group (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.06-4.35; P = 0.03). The proportion of postoperative complications was higher in Tamponade group than non-Tamponade group (OR = 10.81, 95% CI: 1.26-93.02; P = 0.03). However, the proportion of visual acuity improvement (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 0.56-4.80; P = 0.37) between ILM peeling group and non-ILM peeling group and the proportion of resolution of foveoschisis (OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.76-4.28; P = 0.18) between Tamponade group and non-Tamponade group were similar. Conclusions: Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling could contribute to better resolution of myopic foveoschisis than non-peeling, however it does not significantly influence the proportion of visual acuity improvement and postoperative complications. Vitrectomy with gas tamponade is associated with more complications than non-tamponade and does not significantly influence the proportion of visual acuity improvement and resolution of myopic foveoschisis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available