CRAI Biblioteca del Campus de Mundet. Memòria d'activitats 2016

Memòria que recull les activitats realitzades al CRAI Biblioteca del Campus de Mundet durant l'any 2016

The incidence of retinal detachment recurrence between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling.

ILM, internal limiting membrane; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval.</p

The incidence of macular epiretinal membrane formation between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling.

ILM, internal limiting membrane; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval.</p

Flow diagram of studies included in this meta-analysis.

Flow diagram of studies included in this meta-analysis.</p

Characteristics of included studies.

PurposeTo determine whether pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) could get better functional and anatomical outcomes.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed to find relevant studies. A meta-analysis was conducted by comparing the weighted mean differences (WMD) in the mean change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline and calculating the odd ratios (OR) for rates of epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation and recurrence of retinal detachment (RD).ResultsFourteen studies were selected, including 2259 eyes (825 eyes in the ILM peeling group and 1434 eyes in the non-ILM peeling group). There was no significant difference in terms of mean change in BCVA from baseline and the rate of RD recurrence (WMD = 0.02, 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.24, P = 0.86, and OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.26, P = 0.16), but ILM peeling was associated with a significantly lower frequency of postoperative ERM formation (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.26, PConclusionILM peeling results in similar BCVA, with same rate of RD recurrence, but lower rate of postoperative ERM development. ILM peeling could be considered in selected cases with risk factors that are likely to develop an ERM.</div

The mean change in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR units) from baseline between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling based on type of the tamponade used.

The mean change in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR units) from baseline between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling based on type of the tamponade used.</p

PRISMA checklist.

PurposeTo determine whether pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) could get better functional and anatomical outcomes.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed to find relevant studies. A meta-analysis was conducted by comparing the weighted mean differences (WMD) in the mean change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline and calculating the odd ratios (OR) for rates of epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation and recurrence of retinal detachment (RD).ResultsFourteen studies were selected, including 2259 eyes (825 eyes in the ILM peeling group and 1434 eyes in the non-ILM peeling group). There was no significant difference in terms of mean change in BCVA from baseline and the rate of RD recurrence (WMD = 0.02, 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.24, P = 0.86, and OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.26, P = 0.16), but ILM peeling was associated with a significantly lower frequency of postoperative ERM formation (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.26, PConclusionILM peeling results in similar BCVA, with same rate of RD recurrence, but lower rate of postoperative ERM development. ILM peeling could be considered in selected cases with risk factors that are likely to develop an ERM.</div

The incidence of macular epiretinal membrane formation between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling based on type of the tamponade used.

The incidence of macular epiretinal membrane formation between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling based on type of the tamponade used.</p

The mean change in best corrected visual acuity (logMAR units) from baseline between vitrectomy with ILM peeling vs. vitrectomy without ILM peeling.

ILM, internal limiting membrane; SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; DONEL, dissociated optic nerve fiber layer.</p

Ranibizumab Monotherapy or Combined with Laser versus Laser Monotherapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.</p><p>Results</p><p>Seven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD = 5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44–6.87, P<0.00001; WMD  = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83–6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD  = −57.91, 95% CI, −77.62 to −38.20, P<0.00001; WMD  = −56.63, 95% CI, −104.81 to −8.44, P = 0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR = 2.94, 95% CI, 1.82–4.77, P<0.00001; RR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.50–2.78, P<0.00001, and RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06–0.71, P = 0.01; RR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.29–0.95, P = 0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>RBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.</p></div