Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the visual, refractive, and anatomical outcomes and incidence of complications between combined pars plana vitrectomy and phacoemulsification (phacovitrectomy) versus pars plana vitrectomy (PPV-only) in phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Prospective or retrospective studies comparing PPV-only and phacovitrectomy for RRD were included. Recruited studies provided information about at least anatomical success or refractive outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed for single surgery success rate, final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, mean predicted refractive error, and mean absolute predicted refractive error.
RESULTS: Seven studies (788 eyes) were selected, including two clinical trials and five retrospective comparative case series. The single surgery success rate was similar in PPV-only and phacovitrectomy groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.10; P = 0.57). Mean final BCVA was significantly better in the PPV-only group than the phacovitrectomy group (MD = 0.06; 95% CI 0.00-0.12; P = 0.04). The risk of epiretinal membrane formation was significantly higher in eyes that underwent phacovitrectomy than PPV-only (RR = 2.85; 0.95% CI 1.5-5.41; P = 0.001). Phacovitrectomy group showed a more myopic final mean predicted refractive error than PPV-only group (MD = -0.31; 95% CI -0.55--0.07; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the anatomical outcome. Slightly better visual and refractive results were observed in the PPV-only group. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as the majority of included studies were low-quality retrospective studies.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Prospective or retrospective studies comparing PPV-only and phacovitrectomy for RRD were included. Recruited studies provided information about at least anatomical success or refractive outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed for single surgery success rate, final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), postoperative complications, mean predicted refractive error, and mean absolute predicted refractive error.
RESULTS: Seven studies (788 eyes) were selected, including two clinical trials and five retrospective comparative case series. The single surgery success rate was similar in PPV-only and phacovitrectomy groups (risk ratio [RR] = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.10; P = 0.57). Mean final BCVA was significantly better in the PPV-only group than the phacovitrectomy group (MD = 0.06; 95% CI 0.00-0.12; P = 0.04). The risk of epiretinal membrane formation was significantly higher in eyes that underwent phacovitrectomy than PPV-only (RR = 2.85; 0.95% CI 1.5-5.41; P = 0.001). Phacovitrectomy group showed a more myopic final mean predicted refractive error than PPV-only group (MD = -0.31; 95% CI -0.55--0.07; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the anatomical outcome. Slightly better visual and refractive results were observed in the PPV-only group. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as the majority of included studies were low-quality retrospective studies.
摘要：
目的：为了比较视觉，屈光,在有孔源性视网膜脱离（RRD）的有晶状体眼中，平部玻璃体切除术和超声乳化白内障摘除术（超声玻璃体切除术）与平部玻璃体切除术（仅PPV）之间的解剖学结果和并发症发生率。
方法：两名独立的审阅者搜索了MEDLINE，CochraneCentral,和WebofScience来识别相关文章。包括比较仅PPV和晶状体玻璃体切除术治疗RRD的前瞻性或回顾性研究。新的研究至少提供了有关解剖学成功或屈光结果的信息。对单次手术成功率进行Meta分析,最终最佳矫正视力（BCVA），术后并发症,平均预测屈光不正，和平均绝对预测屈光不正。
结果：选择了7项研究（788只眼），包括两个临床试验和五个回顾性比较病例系列。单手术成功率在单纯PPV和超声玻璃体切除术组相似(风险比[RR]=1.02;95%置信区间[CI]0.95-1.10;P=0.57)。仅PPV组的平均最终BCVA明显优于超声玻璃体切除术组（MD=0.06；95％CI0.00-0.12；P=0.04）。与单纯PPV相比，接受晶状体玻璃体切除术的眼睛视网膜前膜形成的风险明显更高（RR=2.85；0.95％CI1.5-5.41；P=0.001）。与单纯PPV组相比，视玻璃体切除术组显示出更多的近视最终平均预测屈光度（MD=-0.31；95％CI-0.55--0.07；P=0.01）。
结论：两组在解剖结果方面没有显著差异。在仅PPV组中观察到稍好的视觉和屈光结果。然而,本研究结果应谨慎解释,因为纳入的大部分研究均为低质量回顾性研究.
方法：两名独立的审阅者搜索了MEDLINE，
结果：选择了7项研究（788只眼），
结论：两组在解剖结果方面没有显著差异。
