IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0310859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surgical managements for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyu Yan
  • Meng Xu
  • Fengjun Su

Abstract

Background and objective: Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is the most common ophthalmic emergency threatening vision, with an incidence ranging from 6.3 to 17.9 per 100,000 people per year. However, optimal surgical management of RRD remains controversial. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of different surgical options in patients with RRD. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of science for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception to 24th September 2023. Frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model was used to synthesize data. The risk of bias for the included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. And we performed the network meta-analysis utilizing R 4.1.3 software and Stata 16SE. Results: A total of 19 RCTs enrolled 2589 eyes were included. With high-to-very low certainty of evidence, compared with pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckling (SB) (odd ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.30; 0.91]), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) (OR = 2.35, 95% CI [1.32; 4.20]), PPV+SB (OR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.32; 5.09]) and PPV combined with phacomulsification (PCV) (OR = 7.72, 95% CI [1.07; 55.87]) were more effect in improving primary reattachment rate; for postoperative 6-month vision, SB was superior to PPV+SB (mean difference (MD) = 0.14, 95% CI [0.01; 0.27]). When compared with SB, PPV (OR = 5.27, 95% CI [3.13; 8.86]) and PPV+SB (OR = 10.12, 95% CI [4.31; 23.77]) shows a higher incidence of postoperative cataract progression. Compared to PR, the same is true for PPV (OR = 7.51, 95% CI [3.33; 16.91]) and PPV+SB (OR = 14.43, 95% CI [4.97; 41.93]). Conclusions: PR appears to be associated with a lower rate of primary reattachment rate and postoperative cataract progression. In view of the small sample sizes of the included studies and the low certainty of evidence, these findings must be interpreted with caution. A large number of high-quality trials should be conducted to verify the effects of different surgical techniques in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyu Yan & Meng Xu & Fengjun Su, 2024. "Surgical managements for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310859
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310859
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310859&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0310859?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian R. White, 2015. "Network meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 15(4), pages 951-985, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giammarco Alderotti & Daniele Vignoli & Michela Baccini & Anna Matysiak, 2019. "Employment Uncertainty and Fertility: A Network Meta-Analysis of European Research Findings," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2019_06, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    2. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    3. Peter J Godolphin & David J Fisher & Lindsay R Berry & Lennie P G Derde & Janet V Diaz & Anthony C Gordon & Elizabeth Lorenzi & John C Marshall & Srinivas Murthy & Manu Shankar-Hari & Jonathan A C Ste, 2022. "Association between tocilizumab, sarilumab and all-cause mortality at 28 days in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Michael Sobel & David Madigan & Wei Wang, 2017. "Causal Inference for Meta-Analysis and Multi-Level Data Structures, with Application to Randomized Studies of Vioxx," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(2), pages 459-474, June.
    5. Iván Cavero-Redondo & Alicia Saz-Lara & Luis García-Ortiz & Cristina Lugones-Sánchez & Blanca Notario-Pacheco & Leticia Gómez-Sánchez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Manuel Ángel Gómez-Marcos, 2021. "Comparative Effect of Antihypertensive Drugs in Improving Arterial Stiffness in Hypertensive Adults (RIGIPREV Study). A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Steven Kwasi Korang & Elena von Rohden & Areti Angeliki Veroniki & Giok Ong & Owen Ngalamika & Faiza Siddiqui & Sophie Juul & Emil Eik Nielsen & Joshua Buron Feinberg & Johanne Juul Petersen & Christi, 2022. "Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Maria Thurow & Thilo Welz & Eric Knop & Tim Friede & Markus Pauly, 2025. "Robust confidence intervals for meta-regression with interaction effects," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1337-1360, March.
    8. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310859. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.