Vitrectomy vs. Spontaneous Closure for Traumatic Macular Hole: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Qi Zhou; Haoyue Feng; Hongbin Lv; Zhongmei Fu; Yuyu Xue; Hejiang Ye

doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.735968

Vitrectomy vs. Spontaneous Closure for Traumatic Macular Hole: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 23:8:735968. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.735968. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Qi Zhou^{1

2}, Haoyue Feng^{1

2}, Hongbin Lv³, Zhongmei Fu^{1

2}, Yuyu Xue^{1

2}, Hejiang Ye²

Affiliations

¹ Eye School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
² Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
³ Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the traumatic macular hole (TMH) closure rate and visual acuity (VA) improvement rate by comparing two treatment methods for TMH: vitrectomy and observation for spontaneous closure. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sino Med were systematically searched from their inception to June 10, 2021. Studies in the surgery group (n = 32) and studies in the observation group (n = 12) were meta-analyzed. The primary outcomes were the TMH closure and VA improvement rates in the surgery and observation groups. The secondary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement in the surgery group. Stata software (version 15.1) was used for the analyses. Results: Thirty-six studies that included 1,009 eyes were selected for this meta-analysis, among which 33 were retrospective studies and 3 were prospective studies. The meta-analysis showed that the random-model pooled event rate for TMH closure was 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) in the observation group, while it was 0.9 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) in the surgery group. The fixed-model pooled event rate for VA improvement was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.45) in the observation group, while the random-model pooled event rate of VA improvement for the surgery group was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.80). The pooled event rate for BCVA improvement in the surgery group was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.46). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that TMH hole closure and VA improvement rates in the surgery group were significantly higher than those in the observation group. Vitrectomy is an effective method for treating TMH. However, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of surgery and observation for TMH treatment. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD42021276684.

Keywords: closure rate; meta-analysis; spontaneous closure; traumatic macular hole; visual acuity improvement; vitrectomy.

Publication types

Systematic Review