Evidence Hub

Combined versus Sequential Pars Plana Vitrectomy and Phacoemulsification for Macular Hole and Epiretinal Membrane - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fowad Daud, Kashif Daud, M. Popovic, Shan-Na C. Yeung, Y. You, M. Pimentel, Peng Yan

Ophthalmology Retina, 2023

545 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

TOPIC

To compare the efficacy and safety between combined and sequential pars plana vitrectomy and phacoemulsification for macular hole (MH) and epiretinal membrane (ERM).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The standard of care for MH and ERM is vitrectomy, which increases risk of developing cataract. Combined phacovitrectomy eliminates the need for a second surgery.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched in May 2022 for all articles comparing combined versus sequential phacovitrectomy for MH and/or ERM. The primary outcome was mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12-months follow-up. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. (PROSPERO, registration number, CRD42021257452) RESULTS: Of the 6470 studies found, 2 RCTs and 8 non-randomized retrospective comparative studies were identified. Total eyes for combined and sequential groups were 435 and 420, respectively. Meta-analysis suggested no significant difference between combined and sequential surgery for 12-month BCVA (combined = 0.38 logMAR, sequential = 0.36 logMAR; mean difference (MD) = +0.02 logMAR; 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.08; p = 0.51, I2 = 0%, n = 4 studies, 398 participants), as well as absolute refractive error (p = 0.76, I2 = 97%, n = 4 studies, 289 participants), risk of myopia (p = 0.15, I2 = 66%, n = 2 studies, 148 participants), MH non-closure…

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: 545 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