Postoperative Outcomes of Combined Phacovitrectomy for Epiretinal Membrane With a Concurrent Cataract vs Standalone Phacoemulsification for a Cataract.

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases Pub Date : 2024-12-31 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1177/24741264241306422
Oubada El-Ali, Konstandina Koklanis, Meri Vukicevic, Wilson J Heriot
{"title":"Postoperative Outcomes of Combined Phacovitrectomy for Epiretinal Membrane With a Concurrent Cataract vs Standalone Phacoemulsification for a Cataract.","authors":"Oubada El-Ali, Konstandina Koklanis, Meri Vukicevic, Wilson J Heriot","doi":"10.1177/24741264241306422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To compare the postoperative outcomes after combined phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and cataract (combined group) vs standalone phacoemulsification (control group). <b>Methods:</b> A systematic literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The primary outcomes were the refractive prediction error and mean absolute error expressed as the spherical equivalent. A secondary outcome was the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The weighted mean prediction error was calculated, and the mean absolute error outcomes were combined for a meta-analysis. When a meta-analysis was not feasible, a narrative synthesis was performed. <b>Results:</b> Of 3632 articles identified in the database search, 6 retrospective case control studies and 1 prospective case study met the inclusion criteria. The 7 studies comprised a total of 584 eyes (combined group, 278 eyes; control group, 306 eyes). The combined weighted mean (±SD) prediction error was -0.41 ± 0.85 D in the combined group, showing a myopic shift, and 0.09 ± 0.45 D in the control group. The meta-analysis for the postoperative mean absolute error showed a significant difference between groups (mean deviation, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.17; <i>P</i> = .01), favoring the control group. The mean BCVA was 0.34 ± 0.21 logMAR in the combined group and 0.575 ± 0.23 logMAR in the control group (Snellen equivalent, 6/12 and 6/19, respectively). <b>Conclusions:</b> The results of the meta-analysis showed that phacovitrectomy for ERM and concurrent cataract leads to higher prediction errors than standalone phacoemulsification for cataract. However, the postoperative BCVA was comparable between the 2 procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"135-143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11688671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264241306422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes after combined phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and cataract (combined group) vs standalone phacoemulsification (control group). Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The primary outcomes were the refractive prediction error and mean absolute error expressed as the spherical equivalent. A secondary outcome was the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The weighted mean prediction error was calculated, and the mean absolute error outcomes were combined for a meta-analysis. When a meta-analysis was not feasible, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Of 3632 articles identified in the database search, 6 retrospective case control studies and 1 prospective case study met the inclusion criteria. The 7 studies comprised a total of 584 eyes (combined group, 278 eyes; control group, 306 eyes). The combined weighted mean (±SD) prediction error was -0.41 ± 0.85 D in the combined group, showing a myopic shift, and 0.09 ± 0.45 D in the control group. The meta-analysis for the postoperative mean absolute error showed a significant difference between groups (mean deviation, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.17; P = .01), favoring the control group. The mean BCVA was 0.34 ± 0.21 logMAR in the combined group and 0.575 ± 0.23 logMAR in the control group (Snellen equivalent, 6/12 and 6/19, respectively). Conclusions: The results of the meta-analysis showed that phacovitrectomy for ERM and concurrent cataract leads to higher prediction errors than standalone phacoemulsification for cataract. However, the postoperative BCVA was comparable between the 2 procedures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
并发白内障的视网膜前膜联合超声玻璃体切除术与白内障单行超声乳化术的术后疗效比较。
目的:比较视网膜前膜合并白内障联合超声玻璃体切除术(联合组)与单纯超声乳化术(对照组)的术后效果。方法:系统检索Ovid MEDLINE、CINAHL和Cochrane图书馆的文献。主要结果是屈光预测误差和平均绝对误差表示为球面等效。次要结果为最佳矫正视力(BCVA)。计算加权平均预测误差,并将平均绝对误差结果合并进行meta分析。当元分析不可行时,进行叙事综合。结果:在数据库检索到的3632篇文章中,6篇回顾性病例对照研究和1篇前瞻性病例研究符合纳入标准。7项研究共纳入584只眼(联合组278只眼;对照组306只眼)。联合组的联合加权平均(±SD)预测误差为-0.41±0.85 D,显示近视偏移;对照组的联合加权平均(±SD)预测误差为0.09±0.45 D。术后平均绝对误差的meta分析显示两组间差异有统计学意义(平均偏差,0.10;95% ci, 0.02-0.17;P = 0.01),有利于对照组。联合组的平均BCVA为0.34±0.21 logMAR,对照组为0.575±0.23 logMAR (Snellen当量分别为6/12和6/19)。结论:meta分析结果显示,ERM合并并发白内障的超声玻璃体切除术的预测误差高于单纯白内障超声乳化术。然而,术后BCVA在两种手术之间具有可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Morphologic Changes of Macular Choroidal Neovascularization on OCT Angiography Following Faricimab Therapy in Patients With AMD. Progressive Intramembranous Cystic Changes in Macular Hole-Associated Epiretinal Proliferation Over 3 Years. No Optic Pit Retinoschisis (NOPIR): A Risk Factor for Glaucoma. An Altmetric and Bibliometric Comparative Analysis from 2014 to 2023 of the 100 Most-Mentioned and 100 Most-Cited Articles About Diabetic Retinopathy. Early Signs of Microvascular Impairment on Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Without Clinical Retinopathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1