Daniel Zhu, Amanda Wong, George Jiao, Charles Zhang, Daniela Yakobashvili, Edward Zhu, Tristan Tham, Ronni Lieberman
{"title":"Chandelier 辅助巩膜扣带术治疗风湿性视网膜脱离的疗效:系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Daniel Zhu, Amanda Wong, George Jiao, Charles Zhang, Daniela Yakobashvili, Edward Zhu, Tristan Tham, Ronni Lieberman","doi":"10.1177/24741264231224956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To examine the outcomes of chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling (chandelier scleral buckling) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs) and compare them with those of standard scleral buckling using indirect ophthalmoscopy. Methods: A literature search was performed on April 15, 2023. Outcomes analyzed included primary anatomic success rates, surgical duration, and complication rates. A meta-analysis of proportions estimated the pooled success rate of chandelier scleral buckling. In addition, meta-analyses compared the success rates between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes having chandelier scleral buckling and compared success rates and surgical duration between standard scleral buckling and chandelier scleral buckling. Results: Thirty studies with 1133 eyes were included. The pooled primary anatomic success rate of chandelier scleral buckling was 91.7% (95% CI, 89.6%-93.6%). In studies comparing success rates between the 2 techniques, there was no significant difference (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08; P = .80). The surgical times were significantly shorter with chandelier scleral buckling than with standard scleral buckling (mean difference, −18.83; 95% CI, −30.88 to −6.79; P = .002). There was no significant difference in the success rate between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .89). No cases of endophthalmitis were reported. Conclusions: Chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling may be a promising technique given its high rate of primary anatomic success for RRDs and success rates similar to those of standard scleral buckling. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of chandelier scleral buckling between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes","PeriodicalId":17919,"journal":{"name":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Chandelier-Assisted Scleral Buckling in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachments: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Zhu, Amanda Wong, George Jiao, Charles Zhang, Daniela Yakobashvili, Edward Zhu, Tristan Tham, Ronni Lieberman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/24741264231224956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To examine the outcomes of chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling (chandelier scleral buckling) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs) and compare them with those of standard scleral buckling using indirect ophthalmoscopy. Methods: A literature search was performed on April 15, 2023. Outcomes analyzed included primary anatomic success rates, surgical duration, and complication rates. A meta-analysis of proportions estimated the pooled success rate of chandelier scleral buckling. In addition, meta-analyses compared the success rates between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes having chandelier scleral buckling and compared success rates and surgical duration between standard scleral buckling and chandelier scleral buckling. Results: Thirty studies with 1133 eyes were included. The pooled primary anatomic success rate of chandelier scleral buckling was 91.7% (95% CI, 89.6%-93.6%). In studies comparing success rates between the 2 techniques, there was no significant difference (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08; P = .80). The surgical times were significantly shorter with chandelier scleral buckling than with standard scleral buckling (mean difference, −18.83; 95% CI, −30.88 to −6.79; P = .002). There was no significant difference in the success rate between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .89). No cases of endophthalmitis were reported. Conclusions: Chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling may be a promising technique given its high rate of primary anatomic success for RRDs and success rates similar to those of standard scleral buckling. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of chandelier scleral buckling between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes\",\"PeriodicalId\":17919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264231224956\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24741264231224956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Outcomes of Chandelier-Assisted Scleral Buckling in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachments: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Purpose: To examine the outcomes of chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling (chandelier scleral buckling) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs) and compare them with those of standard scleral buckling using indirect ophthalmoscopy. Methods: A literature search was performed on April 15, 2023. Outcomes analyzed included primary anatomic success rates, surgical duration, and complication rates. A meta-analysis of proportions estimated the pooled success rate of chandelier scleral buckling. In addition, meta-analyses compared the success rates between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes having chandelier scleral buckling and compared success rates and surgical duration between standard scleral buckling and chandelier scleral buckling. Results: Thirty studies with 1133 eyes were included. The pooled primary anatomic success rate of chandelier scleral buckling was 91.7% (95% CI, 89.6%-93.6%). In studies comparing success rates between the 2 techniques, there was no significant difference (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08; P = .80). The surgical times were significantly shorter with chandelier scleral buckling than with standard scleral buckling (mean difference, −18.83; 95% CI, −30.88 to −6.79; P = .002). There was no significant difference in the success rate between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .89). No cases of endophthalmitis were reported. Conclusions: Chandelier endoillumination–assisted scleral buckling may be a promising technique given its high rate of primary anatomic success for RRDs and success rates similar to those of standard scleral buckling. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of chandelier scleral buckling between pseudophakic eyes and phakic eyes