May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Removal of Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization versus Macular Translocation for Age–Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta–Analysis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C.I. Falkner
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Rudolf Foundation Clinic, Vienna, Austria
  • S. Binder
    Dept of Ophthalmology, Rudolf Foundation Clinic, Vienna, Austria
  • H. Leitich
    Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
    Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • F. Frommlet
    Dept of Medical Statistics,
    Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • P. Bauer
    Dept of Medical Statistics,
    Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C.I. Falkner, None; S. Binder, None; H. Leitich, None; F. Frommlet, None; P. Bauer, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 197. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C.I. Falkner, S. Binder, H. Leitich, F. Frommlet, P. Bauer; Removal of Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization versus Macular Translocation for Age–Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta–Analysis . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):197.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Submacular surgery for age–related macular degeneration (AMD) is still controversial. A meta–analysis was carried out to evaluate the results of the two most established submacular surgical techniques, namely removal of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and macular translocation. Methods: A Medline search for the years 1992 to 2004 was conducted. Original English– or German–language studies reporting the results of removal of subfoveal CNV or macular translocation for AMD were included. The quality of the studies included was scored using the Oxford Centre for Evidence–based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001). The main outcomes were proportion of patients with 2 or more lines of improvement in visual acuity (VA) and proportion with 2 or more lines of deterioration in VA after surgery. A random effects logistic regression model was used to estimate combined outcome rates across studies and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Sixty three studies met the inclusion criteria. Treatment specific estimates gave comparable results for removal of CNV (31 studies, 771 cases; improvement of VA 28%, deterioration of VA 25%) and for macular translocation (32 studies, 792 cases; improvement of VA 31%, deterioration of VA 27%). The complication rate for removal of CNV was lower (50% versus 71%) and the recurrence rate was slightly higher (22% versus 16%) compared to macular translocation. Three of the studies included were level 1 randomized clinical trials and showed considerably lower rates of improvement of VA (14%, 8.8% and 10%) and also considerably higher percentages of deterioration (50%, 37.5% and 36.7%). Neither the other tested variables, such as year of study publication, minimum and maximum follow–up time or the number of cases nor subgroup analysis regarding the duration of follow–up and the number of cases as well as a cross–tabulation of type of study by size of study and follow–up of study showed any significant influence on the outcome. Conclusions: The results of submacular surgery should be considered in view of the natural course of AMD and other current treatment options, such as photodynamic therapy and laser photocoagulation. Submacular surgery has the additional benefit of not being limited by size, type or location of CNV.

Keywords: vitreoretinal surgery • choroid: neovascularization • age-related macular degeneration 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×