Evidence Hub

Human amniotic membrane graft for refractory macular hole: A single-arm meta-analysis and systematic review

Heng-yu Zhang, Yun-Ming Li, Guang-Yu Chen, Fei Han, Wei Jiang

Journal Francais d'Ophtalmologie, 2022

31 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

The treatment of refractory macular holes is controversial, with human amniotic membrane grafts emerging recently as an attractive option. We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review in this paper to assess the results of human amniotic membrane (hAM) in the treatment of refractory macular hole (MH).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, VIP database, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Sinomed, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and Clinical Trials.gov. Studies reporting hAM for the treatment of refractory MH were included. The outcomes are MH closure rate, visual acuity (VA) improvement rate, and graft dislocation/contracture rate.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies on 103 eyes were included, all of which had undergone failed vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. In all studies, the VA improvement rate was 66% (95%CI: 45 to 84%), the MH closure rate was 94% (95%CI: 84 to 100%) and the hAM graft dislocation/contracture rate was 6% (95%CI: 0 to 15%). In the studies using cryopreserved hAM grafts, the MH closure rate was 99% (95%CI: 94 to 100%) and the hAM graft dislocation/contracture rate was 3% (0%, 10%). The VA improvement rates were 94% (95%CI: 79 to 100%) in the retinal detachment subgroup, 37% (95%CI: 20 to 56%) in the pathologic myopia subgroup, and 62% (95%CI: 14 to 100%) in the idiopathic MH subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Human amniotic…

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.

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