Table 1.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study | Country | Study design | No. of patients (eyes) | Reattachment rate after one surgery | Final reattachment rate | Preoperative BCVA (logMAR) | Postoperative BCVA (logMAR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akabane et al., 2001[4] | Japan | A retrospective study | Female: 8 patients (11 eyes) Male: 20 patients (21 eyes) | - | Final rate: 30 eyes (93.8%) | - | 16 eyes: no change in postoperative visual acuity 16 eyes: improved visual acuity of more than two Snellen lines In 3/32 eyes (9.4%), postoperative visual acuity was less than 20/200 |
| Butler, 2015[41] | UK | A retrospective survey | 15 (15 eyes) | - | Final rate: 13/15 (86.6%) | At least 6/12 or better in 1/15 (6.6%) | At least 6/12 or better in Visual improvement occurred in 8/15 (53.3%), remained unchanged in 5/15 (33.3%) worsened in 2/15 (13.3%) |
| Sadeh et al., 2001[27] | Israel | A retrospective review | 16 eyes | - | All operated eyes (100%) | 6/20 or better: 5/11 eyes (46%)Three eyes with attached macula on presentation, VA ≥6/20: 2 (67%)Eight eyes with detached macula on presentation, VA ≥6/20: 3 (38%), 6/60 or worse: 3 (38%) | |
| Weinberg et al., 2003[26] | USA | Retrospective survey | 34 (39 eyes) | - | 31 of the 39 eyes (79%) | Mean: 3.4/200 Median: 20/400 | |
| Yokoyama et al., 2004[28] | Japan | Retrospective review | 49 (55 eyes) | From 43 eyes without PVR: 40 eyes (93%), from 12 eyes with PVR: 3 eyes (25%) | 43 eyes from 43 without PVR (100%)/five eyes from 12 PVR-positive eyes (42%) without silicone oil Complete retinal reattachment in the absence of silicone oil: 48 of the 55 eyes (87%) | Median: 0.3 | Median: 0.7 |
| Chang et al., 2005[12] | Taiwan | Review | 146 (152 eyes) | Eight patients | 119 eyes (78.3%) | - | - |
| Wang et al., 2005[14] | Taiwan | Retrospective survey | 278 (296 eyes) | 214 eyes (72%) | 250 eyes (85%) | 28.6/200 | 68.1/200 |
| Chen et al., 2006[36] | Taiwan | Retrospective study | 32 (35 eyes) | 24 eyes | 80% (totally) (n=25) | - | Congenital anomalies: five eyes: 0.4-1.0, four eyes: 0.1-0.3, one eye: counting fingers-0.1, five eyes: no LP, not available in one eye Trauma: three eyes: 0.4-1.0, four eyes: 0.1 and 0.3, one eye: between counting fingers and 0.1 |
| Gonzales et al., 2008[11] | USA | Retrospective study | 45 patients (46 eyes) | 24 eyes (52%) | 88% | Counting fingers (median) | 20/40 or better: 7 (21) 20/50–20/200: 8 (23) 20/400 to CF: 6 (18) HM to LP: 7 (21) NLP: 6 (18) |
| Wadhwa et al., 2008[5] | India | Retrospective interventional case series | 230 eyes (216 patients) | - | Complete: 204 (88.7%) | - | <4/200: 86 ≥4/200: 138 |
| Wang et al., 2009[44] | Taiwan | Retrospective study | 111 eyes (107 patients) | 90 eyes/111 | 101 eyes | High myopia group: hm (hand motion), 20/20 Extreme myopia group: LP, 20/60 Totally VA ≥20/200: 42 eyes (both extreme and high myopia groups) | ≥20/200: 81 eyes |
| Cheema et al., 2009[37] | Saudi Arabia | Retrospective chart review | 20 patients | - | 17/20 (85%) | Mean=2.146 logMAR | Improvement (the number was not mentioned) |
| Soheilian et al., 2009[31] | Iran | Retrospective case series | 108 patients (127 eyes) | - | Complete: 88 (70.9) | VA >20/40: 11 (8.6) 20/40 ≤ VA ≤ 20/200: 45 (35.4) 20/200 > VA ≥ 5/200: 18 (14.3) VA <5/200: 53 (41.7) | VA >20/40: 14 (11.0) 20/40 ≤ VA ≤ 20/200: 33 (26.0) 20/200 > VA ≥ 5/200: 24 (18.9) VA <5/200: 56 (44.1) |
| Oono et al., 2012[25] | Japan | Retrospective study | 44 (48 eyes) | 40 (83%) | 96% (46 eyes) | Trauma: 0.22 ± 0.55 Myopia: 0.34 ± 0.84 Congenital: 1.51 ± 1.51 Atopic dermatitis: 0.88 ± 1.06 Others: 0.61 ± 1.09 | Trauma: 0.04 ± 0.42 Myopia: 0.24 ± 0.67 Congenital: 1.23 ± 1.36 Atopic dermatitis: 0.36 ± 0.84 Others: 0.54 ± 1.34 |
| Al-Zaaidi et al., 2013[45] | Saudi Arabia | Retrospective chart review | 166 eyes (148 patients) | 106 (63.8%) eyes | 134 (80.4%) eyes | VA ranged from 20/20 in two (1.2%) eyes to LP in 27 (16.27%) eyes | 68 (50.4%) eyes: no change 46 (34.1%) eyes: VA improved 21 (15.5%): VA decreased |
| Rahimi et al., 2014[46] | Iran | Retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case series | 77 eyes (77 patients) | - | 62.3% (n=48) | Negative RAPD: n=40, 52% Positive RAPD: 34 patients (44.2%) | Final BCVA could not be assessed in four patients and the rate of functional visual loss at the last examination was 48.6% (n=34 out of 70 eyes with available data) |
| Imaizumi et al., 2014[47] | Japan | Multicenter study | 10 eyes of nine children | - | Eight eyes (80%) | Hand motion | 0.1 |
| Errera et al., 2015[8] | United Kingdom | Retrospective consecutive case series | 99 patients (104 eyes) | 76/104 (73%) | 98/104 (94%) | - | - |
| Yokoyama, 2004[28] | Japan | Case report | Three eyes (three patients) | - | - | 0.3 (BCVA) with slight hyperopic astigmatism in the right eye 1.2 (BCVA) 0.2 (BCVA) | Unchanged (0.4) 0.8 0.6 |
| Sin et al., 2017[30] | China | Retrospective study | 37 (39 eyes) | 27 (69.2%) | 32 (82.1%) | 32 (logMAR: 1.05 ± 0.79) | 36 (logMAR: 0.93 ± 0.86) |
| Sen, 2016[42] | India | Retrospective, observational, consecutive case series | 15 patients (16 eyes) | 11 eyes (68.7%) | 14/16 (87.5%) eyes | 1.19 ± 0.77 (BCVA) | 0.86 ± 0.83 logMAR |
| Fong et al., 2016[18] | China | Retrospective, consecutive case series | 47 (49 eyes) | 65.30% | 85.7% | 0.97 ± 0.78 | 0.91 ± 1.18 |
| Huang et al., 2019[33] | Taiwan | Retrospective study | 86 (86 eyes) | Trauma: 41.7% Myopia: 68.8% Congenital: 50% Previous ocular surgeries: 20% | Trauma: 70.8% Myopia: 87.5% Congenital: 50% Previous ocular surgeries: 60% | Trauma: 1.9 Myopia: 1.4 Congenital: 2 Previous surgery: 2.2 | Trauma: 1.9 Myopia: 1.1 Congenital: 2 Previous surgery: 2.3 |
| Tsai et al., 2019[34] | Singapore | Retrospective case review | 152 (171 eyes) | 96 (60.7%) | 137 (86.7) | 1.46 ± 1.16 (BCVA logMAR) | 0.99 ± 0.58 (<8 years old), 0.81 ± 1.12 (≥8 years old) |
| Yaşa et al., 2018[43] | Turkey | Retrospective study | 57 patients | - | Anatomical success: 72%, open-globe trauma: 25/36 (69%), closed-globe trauma: 16/21 (76%) | NLP: 4 (7), LP/HM: 35 (61), 1/200-19/200: 8 (14), 20/200-20/50: 4 (7), ≥20/40: 1 (2) | NLP: 5 (9), LP/HM: 27 (46), 1/200–19/200: 14 (25), 20/200–20/50: 8 (14), ≥20/40: 3 (5) |
| Smith et al., 2019[32] | USA | Retrospective, interventional, case series | 191 (212) | 119/183 (65%) | 1 month 115/143 (80%), 3 months 124/161 (77%), 6 months 123/154 (80%), 12 months 133/165 (81%) | Mean: 1.77 (SD: 1.03), (n=137) | 1 month: 1.24 (0.78), (n=91), 3 months: 1.27 (0.88), (n=100), 6 months: 1.30 (0.86), (n=101), 12 months: 1.11 (0.85), (n=105) |
| Abdullatif, 2020[35] | Egypt | Retrospective, interventional, case series | 25 patients (29 eyes) | 55.2% (16 eyes) | 24 eyes (82.7%) | - | 1.5± 0.9 SD (logMAR) Better than 20/200: (11 eyes) 37.9% |
| Ghoraba et al., 2020[29] | Egypt | Retrospective review | 72 patients (and eyes) | - | 44/72 eyes (61.11%) | Perception of light: 24 (33.3%) Hand motion: 27 (37.5%) CF at 20 cm: 0 (0%) CF at 50 cm: 5 (6.9%) CF at 1 m: 8 (11.1%) CF at 2 m: 1 (1.4%) 0.5: 5 (6.9%) 0.1: 1 (1.4%) 0.2: 1 (1.4%) VA not assessed: 0 (0%) | NLP: 7 (5%) PL: 15 (10.6%) HM: 30 (21.3%) CF at 50 cm: 2 (1.4%) CF at 1 m: 26 (18.4%) CF at 2 m: 8 (5.7%) 0.05: 17 (12%) 0.1: 6 (4.3%) 0.3: 4 (2.8%) 0.4: 3 (2.1%) 0.5: 4 (2.8%) 0.6: 0 (0%) 0.9: 0 (0%) |
BCVA=best-corrected visual acuity, logMAR=log of minimum angle of resolution, LP=light perception, PVR=proliferative vitreoretinopathy, SD=standard deviation, VA = visual acuity, RAPD = Relative afferent pupillary defect