Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The opinion of application of indocyanine green (ICG) in the macular hole surgery was contradictory. Here we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of in internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for macular hole surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched electronic databases fo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yan Wu, Wei Zhu, Ding Xu, Yan-Hong Li, Jun Ba, Xiao-Long Zhang, Fang Wang, Jing Yu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3492355?pdf=render
_version_ 1831567887294267392
author Yan Wu
Wei Zhu
Ding Xu
Yan-Hong Li
Jun Ba
Xiao-Long Zhang
Fang Wang
Jing Yu
author_facet Yan Wu
Wei Zhu
Ding Xu
Yan-Hong Li
Jun Ba
Xiao-Long Zhang
Fang Wang
Jing Yu
author_sort Yan Wu
collection DOAJ
description BACKGROUND: The opinion of application of indocyanine green (ICG) in the macular hole surgery was contradictory. Here we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of in internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for macular hole surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched electronic databases for comparative studies published before July 2012 of ILM peeling with and without ICG. Twenty-two studies including 1585 eyes were included. Visual acuity (VA) improvement, including the postoperative rate of ≥20/40 VA gained (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.033) and increased LogMAR (WMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.02; P = 0.011), was less in the ICG group. The risk of visual field defects was greater in the ICG group than in the non-ICG group. There was no significant difference in the rate of anatomical outcomes between ILM peeling procedures performed with and without ICG. RPE changes and other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the ICG and non-ICG groups. An additional analysis showed that the VA improvement of the ICG group was less than the non-ICG group only within the first year of follow up. A subgroup analysis showed that the rate of VA improvement was lower in the ICG group than in other adjuncts group. A higher rate of secondary closure and less VA improvement were observed in a high proportion (>0.1%) of the ICG group. A sensitivity analysis after the randomized-controlled trials were excluded from the meta-analysis demonstrated no differences compared with the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that there is no evidence of clinical superiority in outcomes for ICG-assisted ILM peeling procedure over the non-ICG one. The toxicity of ICG should be considered when choosing the various staining methods.
first_indexed 2024-12-17T12:06:12Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1529f1a70f2e476698d785df74d1fdea
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-17T12:06:12Z
publishDate 2012-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-1529f1a70f2e476698d785df74d1fdea2022-12-21T21:49:37ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-01711e4840510.1371/journal.pone.0048405Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.Yan WuWei ZhuDing XuYan-Hong LiJun BaXiao-Long ZhangFang WangJing YuBACKGROUND: The opinion of application of indocyanine green (ICG) in the macular hole surgery was contradictory. Here we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of in internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for macular hole surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched electronic databases for comparative studies published before July 2012 of ILM peeling with and without ICG. Twenty-two studies including 1585 eyes were included. Visual acuity (VA) improvement, including the postoperative rate of ≥20/40 VA gained (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.033) and increased LogMAR (WMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.02; P = 0.011), was less in the ICG group. The risk of visual field defects was greater in the ICG group than in the non-ICG group. There was no significant difference in the rate of anatomical outcomes between ILM peeling procedures performed with and without ICG. RPE changes and other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the ICG and non-ICG groups. An additional analysis showed that the VA improvement of the ICG group was less than the non-ICG group only within the first year of follow up. A subgroup analysis showed that the rate of VA improvement was lower in the ICG group than in other adjuncts group. A higher rate of secondary closure and less VA improvement were observed in a high proportion (>0.1%) of the ICG group. A sensitivity analysis after the randomized-controlled trials were excluded from the meta-analysis demonstrated no differences compared with the overall results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that there is no evidence of clinical superiority in outcomes for ICG-assisted ILM peeling procedure over the non-ICG one. The toxicity of ICG should be considered when choosing the various staining methods.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3492355?pdf=render
spellingShingle Yan Wu
Wei Zhu
Ding Xu
Yan-Hong Li
Jun Ba
Xiao-Long Zhang
Fang Wang
Jing Yu
Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
PLoS ONE
title Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
title_full Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
title_fullStr Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
title_full_unstemmed Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
title_short Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery: a meta-analysis.
title_sort indocyanine green assisted internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery a meta analysis
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3492355?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT yanwu indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT weizhu indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT dingxu indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT yanhongli indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT junba indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT xiaolongzhang indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT fangwang indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis
AT jingyu indocyaninegreenassistedinternallimitingmembranepeelinginmacularholesurgeryametaanalysis