Comparison of Chandelier-Assisted versus Standard Scleral Buckling for the Treatment of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
{"title":"Comparison of Chandelier-Assisted versus Standard Scleral Buckling for the Treatment of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yung-Shuo Kao, Chia-Yun Chen, Yu-Te Huang, San-Ni Chen","doi":"10.1159/000540820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Compare the anatomical and functional outcomes, operation duration, and complication rates between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2024. The primary endpoint will be set as a final success. The secondary endpoint will be primary success, operation time, and final BCVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis showed that there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB for the final success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97-1.03). For the primary success rate, there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.06). For operation time, our meta-analysis showed that the CSB group is less than the SSB group (pooled MD = -15.8, 95% CI = -22.60 to -9.00). For postoperative complications, our study shows that the CSB group presented with lower pooled risk than the SSB group (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). There is a trend that the ERM formation risk is higher in the CSB group if there is no routine suture for the sclerotomy (p = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CSB showcases a significantly reduced operation duration and less postoperative complication in contrast to the SSB group, maintaining comparable primary and ultimate anatomical success rates as well as final BCVA.</p>","PeriodicalId":19595,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540820","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Compare the anatomical and functional outcomes, operation duration, and complication rates between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2024. The primary endpoint will be set as a final success. The secondary endpoint will be primary success, operation time, and final BCVA.
Results: Our meta-analysis showed that there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB for the final success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97-1.03). For the primary success rate, there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.06). For operation time, our meta-analysis showed that the CSB group is less than the SSB group (pooled MD = -15.8, 95% CI = -22.60 to -9.00). For postoperative complications, our study shows that the CSB group presented with lower pooled risk than the SSB group (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). There is a trend that the ERM formation risk is higher in the CSB group if there is no routine suture for the sclerotomy (p = 0.08).
Conclusion: CSB showcases a significantly reduced operation duration and less postoperative complication in contrast to the SSB group, maintaining comparable primary and ultimate anatomical success rates as well as final BCVA.
期刊介绍:
Published since 1899, ''Ophthalmologica'' has become a frequently cited guide to international work in clinical and experimental ophthalmology. It contains a selection of patient-oriented contributions covering the etiology of eye diseases, diagnostic techniques, and advances in medical and surgical treatment. Straightforward, factual reporting provides both interesting and useful reading. In addition to original papers, ''Ophthalmologica'' features regularly timely reviews in an effort to keep the reader well informed and updated. The large international circulation of this journal reflects its importance.