Evidence Hub

Large macular hole and autologous retinal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mário Hanai, D. Amaral, R. Jacometti, Eduardo Henrique Cassins Aguiar, F. C. Gomes, L. G. Cyrino, Milton Ruiz Alves, M. L. R. Monteiro et al.

International Journal of Retina and Vitreous, 2024

322 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Macular holes are breaks in the retinal tissue at the center of the macula, affecting central vision. The standard treatment involves vitrectomy with membrane peeling and gas tamponade. However, for larger or chronic holes, alternative techniques like autologous retinal graft have emerged. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of retinal transplantation in managing large macular holes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. The study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024504801). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases for observational studies including individuals with large macular holes with or without retinal detachments and retinal transplantation as the main therapy. We used a random-effects model to compute the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals and performed statistical analysis using R software. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 19 studies involving 322 patients diagnosed with various types of macular holes (MHs). These included cohorts with refractory MH, high myopia associated with MH, primary MH, and MH with retinal detachment (RD). The findings were promising, revealing an overall closure rate of 94% of cases (95% CI 88–98, I2 = 20%). Moreover, there was a significant improvement in postoperative visual acuity across all subgroups, averaging 0.45 (95% CI 0.33–0.58 ; I2 = 72%; p < 0.01) overall. However, complications occurred with an overall…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 322 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free