PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Given the two different kinds of epiretinal membranes, this study aimed to compare both the structural and functional outcomes of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) after surgery.
METHODS: Publications up to July 2020 that compared the surgical outcomes of lamellar macular hole with and without LHEP were included. Forest plots were created by using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Fixed or random effects models were used on the basis of I2 heterogeneity estimates. Meanwhile, to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: Eight pertinent publications that contained a total of 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included. They were all retrospective studies and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the preoperative best corrected visual acuity showed no significant differences between the two groups, and the visual acuity improved in both groups after surgery. The pooled result for the improved best corrected visual acuity was 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.26; P < 0.01) between the with and without LHEP groups. The restored ellipsoid zone odds ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.26 to 2.44; P = 0.69) for the group with LHEP compared to the group without LHEP.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients without LHEP had better postoperative visual acuity than patients with LHEP. No significant difference in restored ellipsoid zone was found between the two groups.
METHODS: Publications up to July 2020 that compared the surgical outcomes of lamellar macular hole with and without LHEP were included. Forest plots were created by using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Fixed or random effects models were used on the basis of I2 heterogeneity estimates. Meanwhile, to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: Eight pertinent publications that contained a total of 176 eyes without LHEP and 173 eyes with LHEP were included. They were all retrospective studies and had a follow-up of at least 6 months. In all studies, the preoperative best corrected visual acuity showed no significant differences between the two groups, and the visual acuity improved in both groups after surgery. The pooled result for the improved best corrected visual acuity was 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.26; P < 0.01) between the with and without LHEP groups. The restored ellipsoid zone odds ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.26 to 2.44; P = 0.69) for the group with LHEP compared to the group without LHEP.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients without LHEP had better postoperative visual acuity than patients with LHEP. No significant difference in restored ellipsoid zone was found between the two groups.
摘要：
背景：鉴于两种不同的视网膜前膜，本研究旨在比较板层黄斑裂孔术后有无板层裂孔相关视网膜上皮增生(LHEP)的结构和功能结局.
方法：纳入了截至2020年7月的出版物，比较了有和没有LHEP的板层黄斑裂孔的手术结果。森林地块是通过使用比例荟萃分析的加权摘要创建的。在I2异质性估计的基础上使用固定或随机效应模型。同时,为了评估荟萃分析的稳定性，进行了敏感性分析。
结果：纳入了8篇相关出版物，共176只眼无LHEP，173只眼有LHEP。他们都是回顾性研究，随访至少6个月。在所有研究中,术前最佳矫正视力两组间无显著性差异,两组术后视力均有改善。改善的最佳矫正视力的合并结果为0.18(95%置信区间(CI)，0.10至0.26；P<0.01）在有和无LHEP组之间。与无LHEP组相比，有LHEP组恢复的椭球区比值比为0.80（95％CI，0.26至2.44；P=0.69）。
结论：无LHEP的患者术后视力优于有LHEP的患者。两组之间在恢复的椭球区没有发现显着差异。
方法：纳入了截至2020年7月的出版物，比较了有和没有LHEP的板层黄斑裂孔的手术结果。森林地块是通过使用比例荟萃分析的加权摘要创建的。在I2异质性估计的基础上使用固定或随机效应模型。同时,为了评估荟萃分析的稳定性，进行了敏感性分析。
结果：纳入了8篇相关出版物，共176只眼无LHEP，173只眼有LHEP。他们都是回顾性研究，随访至少6个月。在所有研究中,术前最佳矫正视力两组间无显著性差异,两组术后视力均有改善。改善的最佳矫正视力的合并结果为0.18(95%置信区间(CI)，0.10至0.26；P<0.01）在有和无LHEP组之间。与无LHEP组相比，有LHEP组恢复的椭球区比值比为0.80（95％CI，0.26至2.44；P=0.69）。
结论：无LHEP的患者术后视力优于有LHEP的患者。两组之间在恢复的椭球区没有发现显着差异。
