The Efficacy and Safety of Air Tamponade in the Repair of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Aibin Zhu,Jiangni Wu,Yuan,Lan Zeng,Xiaocong Wang,Wei Tan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000530690
2023-01-01
Ophthalmic Research
Abstract:Background: Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined air tamponade has many advantages compared with PPV combined gas tamponade. However, there are controversial outcomes in RRD cases involving the lower quadrants. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPV combined air tamponade in patients with RRD compared with PPV combined gas tamponade and whether it could be a safe alternative to PPV combined gas tamponade. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases published until September 2022 were comprehensively searched for studies that compared PPV combined with air tamponade and gas tamponade in patients with RRD. The rate of primary treatment success, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and postoperative complications were extracted from the final eligible studies. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; registration number CRD42022353479). Results: A total of 8 studies with 668 eyes in the air tamponade group and 944 in the gas tamponade group were included. There was no significant difference in the rate of primary treatment success between the air tamponade group and the gas tamponade group (RR = 1.00, p = 0.79). In addition, the subgroup analysis suggested that whether retinal breaks were located above or below, there was no significant difference in either rate of primary treatment success (RR = 0.99, p = 0.89; RR = 1.02, p = 0.45). There was no significant difference in mean BCVA 3 months after surgery (MD = −0.02, p = 0.50). For postoperative complications, mean postoperative intraocular pressure was lower in the air tamponade group at 1 day (MD = −4.24, p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at 7 days (MD = −0.45, p = 0.71), 1 month (MD = −0.69, p = 0.33), and 3 months (MD = 0.69, p = 0.35) after surgery. The rate of epiretinal membrane development was lower in the air tamponade group (RR = 0.48, p = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with uncomplicated RRD, PPV combined air tamponade is a feasible and safe alternative to PPV combined gas tamponade, regardless of the position of retinal breaks, with a similar primary treatment success rate, postoperative BCVA, and fewer postoperative complications.