28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Surgical Complications of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Meta-Analysis

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To investigate the surgical complications of scleral buckling (SB) and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) performed on primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and to discover which surgical procedures bring fewer complications.

          Methods

          An electronic literature search using the PubMed database, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing SB with PPV on primary RRD. Outcome measures included intra-operative complications and early and late post-operative complications.

          Results

          During the operation, significantly less subretinal hemorrhage occurred in the PPV group than in the SB group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI, 1.33–16.64; p = 0.02) and the hypotony incidence was significantly higher in the SB group (OR = 18.24; 95%CI, 2.37–140.44; p = 0.005); however, the occurrence of iatrogenic breaks was significantly lower in the SB group (OR = 0.05; 95%CI, 0.01–0.21; p<0.0001). In the early stage of post-operation, significantly higher incidence of choroidal detachment was identified in the SB group than in the PPV group (OR = 10.19; 95%CI, 2.36–44.09; p = 0.002); patients undergoing SB had significantly higher odds of residual subretinal fluid (OR = 14.71; 95%CI, 1.84–117.32; p = 0.01); the occurrence of high intraocular pressure was significantly lower in the SB group (OR = 0.46; 95%CI, 0.23–0.89; p = 0.02); and no significant difference was shown in the incidence of epithelia defect ( p = 0.37) between the two groups. In the late stage of post-operation, the incidence of diplopia/extraocular muscle dysfunction was significantly higher in the SB group (OR = 4.04; 95%CI, 1.30–12.52; p = 0.02); and significantly less cataract was observed in the SB group (OR = 0.20; 95%CI, 0.14–0.30; p<0.00001); no significant difference was found in the incidences of cystoid macular edema ( p = 0.65), macular pucker ( p = 0.52), post-operative proliferative vitreoretinopathy ( p = 0.73) and epiretinal membrane ( p = 0.47) in other late post-operative complications.

          Conclusions

          This meta-analysis suggests that PPV could be considered as potential surgical management on primary RRD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.

          To develop and validate a new risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized studies (NRSs). We developed the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). A validation process with 39 NRSs examined the reliability (interrater agreement), validity (the degree of correlation between the overall assessments of RoBANS and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies [MINORS], obtained by plotting the overall risk of bias relative to effect size and funding source), face validity with eight experts, and completion time for the RoBANS approach. RoBANS contains six domains: the selection of participants, confounding variables, the measurement of exposure, the blinding of the outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The interrater agreement of the RoBANS tool except the measurement of exposure and selective outcome reporting domains ranged from fair to substantial. There was a moderate correlation between the overall risks of bias determined using RoBANS and MINORS. The observed differences in effect sizes and funding sources among the assessed studies were not correlated with the overall risk of bias in these studies. The mean time required to complete RoBANS was approximately 10 min. The external experts who were interviewed evaluated RoBANS as a "fair" assessment tool. RoBANS shows moderate reliability, promising feasibility, and validity. The further refinement of this tool and larger validation studies are required. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias.

            Publication bias is a major problem in evidence based medicine. As well as positive outcome studies being preferentially published or followed by full text publication authors are also more likely to publish positive results in English-language journals. This unequal distribution of trials leads to a selection bias in evidence l level studies, like systematic reviews, meta-analysis or health technology assessments followed by a systematic failure of interpretation and in clinical decisions. Publication bias in a systematic review occurs mostly during the selection process and a transparent selection process is necessary to avoid such bias. For systematic reviews/meta-analysis the PRISMA-statement (formerly known as QUOROM) is recommended, as it gives the reader for a better understanding of the selection process. In the future the use of trial registration for minimizing publication bias, mechanisms to allow easier access to the scientific literature and improvement in the peer review process are recommended to overcome publication bias. The use of checklists like PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review. Copyright © 2010 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incidence of endophthalmitis after 20- and 25-gauge vitrectomy.

              To assess the incidence rate of endophthalmitis after 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy and to compare it with the endophthalmitis rate after 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Retrospective, interventional, comparative cohort study. Eight thousand six hundred one consecutive pars plana vitrectomy surgery patients. Surgeries performed at a single institution between January 1, 2004, and September 1, 2006, were reviewed. Incidence of postvitrectomy endophthalmitis. Endophthalmitis developed in 1 of 5498 eyes after 20-gauge vitrectomy (0.018%) and in 7 of 3103 eyes after 25-gauge vitrectomy cases (0.23%; P = 0.004). Median final visual acuity was counting fingers or hand movements (range, 20/50-no light perception), with comparable results between 20-gauge and 25-gauge endophthalmitis cases. The visual outcomes of vitrectomy-associated endophthalmitis, for both 20-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy, is poor. In this study population, 25-gauge vitrectomy had a statistically significant 12-fold higher incidence of endophthalmitis compared with 20-gauge vitrectomy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 March 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 3
                : e0116493
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Ophthalmology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, No. 107, Wenhuaxi Road, Jinan 250012, China
                [2 ]State Key Lab of Crystal Materials, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
                Medical University Graz, AUSTRIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Design and conduct of the study: ZL YQ. Collection and management of the data: ZL YL YW. Analysis and interpretation of the data: ZL YQ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: YL YW. Wrote the paper: ZL YQ.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-35040
                10.1371/journal.pone.0116493
                4348461
                25734450
                bd1a6b4f-b933-453a-bd80-c258d55dd6a5
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 7 August 2014
                : 10 December 2014
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 13
                Funding
                This study was supported partly by Natural Science foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2013HZ003), Scientific & Technologic Project of Jinan (201302025), and The Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University (2014JC015). The funders had no role in study design, data, collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article