Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and retinal detachment (RD) by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis of published studies. Methods Studies reporting clinical outcomes of DEX use for the treatment of macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy were searched on PubMed and Embase databases. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change between baseline and post-DEX treatment, reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mean central macular thickness (CMT) change was assessed as a secondary outcome. Postimplant adverse events, including intraocular pressure rise and cataract development, were reported as well. Results Five uncontrolled studies, 1 nonrandomized controlled study, and 1 randomized controlled study were included, with a total of 5 cohorts and 3 cohorts in the ERM group and RD group, respectively. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant improvement in postimplant BCVA was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = −0.28, 95% CI = −0.37, −0.20; p < 0.001), but with significant heterogeneity. In either group, mean BCVA significantly improved following the implant (in the ERM group, MD = −0.31, 95% CI = −0.40, −0.22; in the RD group, MD = −0.22, 95% CI = −0.41, −0.03), with no difference between the two groups (p=0.41). However, there was significant heterogeneity in both groups. Considering the last available follow-up, a significant CMT reduction was found in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD = −129.75, 95% CI = −157.49, −102.01; p < 0.001). In the ERM group, a significant CMT reduction was shown following DEX (MD = −133.41, 95% CI = −155.37, −111.45; p < 0.001), with no heterogeneity. In the RD group, mean CMT reduction was borderline significant (MD = −128.37, 95% CI = −253.57, −3.18; p=0.040), with significant heterogeneity. No difference in CMT improvement was found between the two groups (p=0.94). Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that DEX yielded a significant improvement in visual and anatomical outcomes, even if limited by significant heterogeneity. Dexamethasone implant represents an effective treatment for postoperative macular oedema secondary to ERM and RD vitrectomy.

Highlights

  • Postoperative cystoid macular oedema (CMO) represents one of the main causes of postoperative visual impairment, generally occurring between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery [1].is condition has been reported following vitrectomy, with an incidence as high as 47% of cases [2]

  • Several authors reported the use of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX) for macular oedema secondary to vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (ERM) and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD), showing promising results [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]

  • Data from 5 studies and 3 studies were pooled together for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) analysis in the ERM and RRD groups, respectively. e analysis on BCVA change between baseline and last available follow-up after DEX showed a significant visual improvement in the overall population, irrespective of the indication for vitrectomy (MD −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37, −0.20; p < 0.001; Figure 2)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Postoperative cystoid macular oedema (CMO) represents one of the main causes of postoperative visual impairment, generally occurring between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery [1].is condition has been reported following vitrectomy, with an incidence as high as 47% of cases [2]. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of intravitreal dexamethasone implant for the treatment of postoperative macular oedema after vitrectomy for ERM or RRD were systematically reviewed. E following inclusion criteria were considered (1) to include patients with macular oedema secondary to vitrectomy for ERM and/or RRD, (2) to report clinical outcome of treatment with intravitreal dexamethasone implant, and (3) to present a follow-up ≥3 months.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.