Skip to main content
Download PDF

Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes

International Journal of Retina and Vitreous volume 9, Article number: 33 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

We conducted a systematic review to compare  the effects of pneumatic vitreolysis (PV), enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) with ocriplasmin, and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) on vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) to assess their efficacy as treatment options.

Methods

Databases, including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)—including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2)—, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2000–October 2022), were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of PV versus PPV, PPV versus ocriplasmin and ocriplasmin versus PV. RevMan 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis of the studies.

Results

Among the 89 studies, 79 were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 quantitative studies were subjected to meta-analysis. PPV resulted in better postoperative visual acuity improvement than ocriplasmin (standardized mean deviation (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03–0.73, p = 0.0003). PV resulted in no significant difference in visual improvement compared  with  PPV (SMD = − 0.15, 95% CI − 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35). PPV was significantly more effective in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38–0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin. PV was more effective than ocriplasmin in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.70, p = 0.0001). Qualitative analysis showed MH closure rates of 46%, 47.8%, and 95% and VMT releases rates of 46%, 68% and 100% after ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV treatments, respectively.  Adverse events and postoperative complications occurring after treatment have also been documented in these studies.

Conclusion

PPV appears to be the most promising option for MH closure and VMT release, with fewer serious complications than EVL  or PV. However, given the limited number of studies comparing these treatments, further research is needed to establish the superiority of PPV over the other options.

Background

Vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome is caused by incomplete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD)  of  the macula [1]. This unusual macular condition was first reported in 1970 by Reese et al. [2], who  confirmed that traction is caused by incomplete PVD in the macula, leading to decreased visual acuity (VA). Macular traction can be anterior and posterior, as in VMT, which is caused by the persistent attachment of the vitreous in the macular region and ultimately leads to macular hole (MH) formation, macular edema, and limited macular retinal detachment [1]. A diverse range of maculopathies, including MHs, epiretinal membranes (ERMs), and cystoid macular edema (CME), have been associated with VMT syndrome [3, 4]. MHs are associated with VMT syndrome due to traction and schisis that results in foveal tissue distortion, focal CME, and subretinal detachment. These instances might be regarded as manifestations of VMT syndrome that confirm its association with MH formation. The first stage of idiopathic MHs has been frequently reported to be linked to perifoveal vitreous detachment [5, 6].

VMT is classified according to its underlying macular pathology, such as diabetic macular edema (DME), the presence of a full-thickness macular hole (FTMH), an ERM or an adhesion with a specific area diameter (focal ≤ 1500 μm and broad > 1500 μm) [7]. The treatment of VMT varies depending on the patient’s symptoms and the severity of traction. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with ERM peeling and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is the most effective treatment for these cases. However, PPV is considered to be the most difficult and invasive method, with a higher risk of complications [8] such as retinal tears (RTs), cataract formation, and endophthalmitis [9, 10]. Although enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) using ocriplasmin is another option, it is very costly, often unavailable and has an uncertain efficacy [11]. The Food and Drug Administration approved ocriplasmin in 2012 and introduced it commercially for pharmacological vitreolysis, which is considered a less invasive intervention than PPV [11, 12]. However, the VMT release rate, is only approximately 40% [12] and the success rate of ocriplasmin treatment is 26.5% [13]. Furthermore, it is not the optimal treatment for VMT because it is relatively expensive and can result in side effects such as lens subluxation, transitory visual loss, electroretinogram abnormalities, retinal fractures, ellipsoid zone deformities and dyschromatopsias [14, 15], thus greatly limiting its widespread use. Therefore, highly efficient, cost-effective, and much safer treatment methods for VMT and MHs are under further investigation.

To overcome the limitations of the previous techniques, the pneumatic vitreolysis (PV) technique was first defined in 1995 by Chan et al. [16], who achieved great success in treating stage 1–2 MHs. They reported that 96% of patients developed complete PVD and 57% of stage 2 MHs were closed after receiving a 0.3 cc perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas injection.  Additional studies [17, 18], reported that 80% of isolated VMT cases resolved with PV treatment. Following these findings, Steinle et al. [19] and Özdemir et al. [20], reported the enhanced effectiveness of PV treatment using the postoperative "drinking bird" maneuver (bobbing the head forward and backward as instructed repeatedly until the VMT is released) and long-acting gases, such as C3F8. The "drinking bird" maneuver is a postoperative technique used in conjunction with PV treatment to enhance its effectiveness [21]. This technique involves the patient moving their head back and forth to facilitate mixing of the injected gas bubble with the vitreous fluid, thereby improving the chance of successful treatment [22]. During the "drinking bird" maneuver, the patient tilts their head forward, with the chin towards the chest, and then slowly raises their head, maintaining a steady movement until the gas bubble reaches the area of the eye requiring treatment. The maneuver is repeated several times during the day to ensure optimal mixing and distribution of the gas bubble [17, 20, 23]. In recent decades, owing to the popularity of optical coherence tomography (OCT), there has been an increase in interest in this therapeutic method, with  the  main advantages  of  minimal invasiveness, low cost, high efficacy, minimal side effects and easy application [24, 25].

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the postoperative functional outcomes and compare the incidence of complications of PPV, ocriplasmin vitreolysis, and PV for the treatment of VMT syndrome and MHs.

Methodology

Literature sources and searches

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements [26]. A relevant literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL. Moreover, the Clinical Trials.gov and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases were searched for studies  on VMT, MHs, PV, ocriplasmin vitreolysis and vitrectomy. The  literature search strategies were designed separately for each database Additional file 1 to locate the most relevant data until 2/5/2023. For MEDLINE and EMBASE, OVID® AutoAlerts were set up to alert authors regarding any pertinent new publications. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (https://www.arvo.org) websites were also searched. Conferences held through the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) were searched for all years available, and the meeting materials of the Canadian Society of Ophthalmology (COS) were searched from 2012 to 2022. The ARVO, AAO and COS searches were conducted until 2/5/2023. The following keywords were used for searching conference abstracts: "vitreomacular traction syndrome", “macular hole” “ocriplasmin”, “vitrectomy” and “macular hole surgery”.

Inclusion criteria

Studies that investigated  the effects of ocriplasmin or surgery on MHs were included. Clinical trials, comparative studies, and nonrandomized studies including cohort studies and retrospective studies were included. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) the studies included patients who were diagnosed with VMT and/or MHs; and (2) the studies reported the effectiveness of PV, EVL using ocriplasmin and vitrectomy for vitreomacular adhesions (VMAs) release, MH closure, or vision improvement. The  studies were required to have a minimum sample size of 10 eyes. Studies could have been performed in any country. But those   with patients who underwent more than 6 months of follow-up were considered eligible.

Exclusion criteria

Single case reports, editorials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, articles describing studies with fewer than 10 participants and articles focused on basic research and nonhuman studies were excluded. Studies solely pertaining to age-related macular degeneration or other diagnoses unrelated to VMT and MHs were excluded. Articles that were published in languages other than English were also excluded.

Screening and filtering of literature

 Articles retrieved through all the database searches were imported into Covidence.org. Duplicate studies were removed, and systematic screening was conducted by two authors (MAQR and VLG). The titles and abstracts were screened, and KAPPA statistics were computed for each stage of filtering before disputes were resolved. In the event of a disagreement, a third reviewer (EAQG) was requested for arbitration. The complete texts of the eligible studies were then uploaded for full screening. Again, the KAPPA statistics were computed before disputes were resolved. All the studies were extracted after evaluating the following relevant information: (1) general information about the study (purpose, aim and findings); (2) followed methodology (study design, entry criteria, study participant, methods, and follow-up period); (3) visual acuity before and after treatment, or the number of eyes with visual acuity that was not corrected, corrected or worseen after treatment; (4) whether the eyes underwent peeling of the ILM at the time of surgery; and (5) safety outcomes and complications during and after PV, ocriplasmin vitreolysis and vitrectomy. The quality of the literature on the completed list was assessed.

Data extraction

Data were extracted by a single author (MAQR). The retrieved data included basic information (principal author´s last name, year of publication, sample size, study region, study groups, study design, mean age of the participants, total sample size, percentage of cases with MHs, MH closure rates, pre- and posttreatment interventions, mean MH size and VA, percentage of adverse events, participant characteristics (age and sex), treatment details (dose), and disease characteristics (diameter of VMA, presence of ERM and size of MHs).

Study quality

Modified Downs and Black checklists were used to assess the quality of the included studies Additional file 2. The following items were evaluated in the remaining studies: reporting, external validity, internal validity (bias), internal validity (confounding), and power. Each study was given a total score of 28 according to the checklist. All studies were included in the analysis because of the limited availability of literature. We also reviewed additional studies reporting external validity, internal validity (bias), internal validity (confounding), and power. Each study received a final score of 28 out of a total possible score. All studies were included in the analysis  because of the limited amount of literature that was available.

Statistical analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using STATA v. 15.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The mean and standard deviation (SD) of both pre- and postoperative VMT and MH parameters were the main outcomes of interest. Regarding the treatment effect, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated by dividing the difference between the mean pre- and postoperative values for each outcome measure (such as MH size and VA) by the SD of the corresponding outcome measure's SD. Each SMD was assigned a weight based on the inverse of its variance, and an average was then calculated. Heterogeneity between studies was computed  using the I2-test, Z, and χ2 statistics. An I2 statistic > 50% was considered to represent significantly high heterogeneity. Furthermore, a low p-value (< 0.01), a high Z value, and a large χ2 value were considered to indicate substantial heterogeneity; therefore, by using the DerSimonian and Laird methods, a random-effects model was applied. Because the data were clinically heterogeneous by nature, random-effects models were applied in each meta-analysis. Forest plots were also generated, and funnel plots were generated to check for publication bias.

Results

Search results

The database search yielded 412 relevant studies after keyword searches. Reviews, case reports, correspondences, abstracts, and other irrelevant documents were excluded first. After creening the titles and abstracts, 126 additional studies were excluded. Among the remaining studies, 75 studies were  excluded because of insufficient data and irrelevant interventions. Finally, 44 studies were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 studies were considered eligible for quantitative analysis by assessing the full text (Fig. 1). Among these, we selected 10 different comparative studies: 3 studies compared ocriplasmin versus PV, 2 studies compared PV and PPV, and 5 studies compared PPV with ocriplasmin (Table 1). All the eligible selected studies were comparative nonrandomized, prospective, or retrospective studies. Noncomparative case series, retrospective case series, retrospective analysis, retrospective monocentric analysis, and prospective interventional case series were also included for qualitative and pooled event data analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prisma flow chart showing the detailed search strategy for desired study selection

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Characteristics of included studies

The present study provides a comprehensive summary of ten relevant investigations, and the characteristics of each study are outlined in Table 1. The included studies comprised six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three retrospective analyses, three prospective studies, and two retrospective reviews with retrospective case series. Our analysis primarily focuses on the reported adverse events and complications associated with ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV, which are further presented in Table 2. The data compiled in this study are expected to provide a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers alike for the development of optimal management strategies for these ocular conditions.

Table 2 Postoperative complications and adverse events that occurred after different treatments
Full size table

Methodological completeness ensured by modified downs and black checklist

To ensure methodological completeness, the quality of all studies included in this analysis was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. The evaluation criteria  were reporting, external validity, internal validity (bias), internal validity (confounding), and power. The quality scores for each study were calculated from a total possible score of 28, with a median score was found to be 15.5. All included studies were analyzed despite variations in quality scores, as the literature available on the topic was limited. A summary of the quality assessment results  is presented in Additional file 2: Table S1.

Publication bias

The funnel plots are scatter plots comparing the estimated intervention effect from each study against a measure of each study size or precision. The funnel plot for preoperative VA (Fig. 2) showed that only 2 studies were located outside the funnel shape, while the funnel plot for postoperative VA showed that only one study was located outside the funnel plot (Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 4, none of the studies evaluating the different interventions for VMT release and MH closure showed evidence of publication bias.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Funnel plot of studies comparing preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ocriplasmin versus PPV

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel plot of studies comparing postoperative VA of ocriplasmin versus PPV

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Funnel plot of included studies evaluating the VMT release rate

Full size image

Visual outcome efficacy analysis

In this meta-analysis, three different interventions for VMT release and MH treatment were compared to identify the best treatment for improving VA with fewer complications. Among these interventions, ocriplasmin was compared with PPV and PPV was compared with PV. The analysis of pre- and postoperative VA showed significantly greater improvement after PPV than after ocriplasmin treatment (SMD = − 0.02, 95% CI − 0.36–0.32, p = 0.93 to SMD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03–0.73, p = 0.0003) (Figs. 5, 6).  Testing for heterogeneity  revealed a high rate of heterogeneity. Moreover, the postoperative VA improvement was greater in patients who underwent PV (SMD = − 0.15, 95% CI − 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35) than in those who underwent PPV, but there was no significant difference in the postoperative BCVA (Fig. 7). The comparative study of ocriplasmin and PV [27, 28] did not report the preoperative and postoperative VA, thus an analysis was not conducted.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of preoperative BCVA of ocriplasmin versus PPV

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

The postoperative BCVA of ocriplasmin versus PPV

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot of postoperative BCVA of PV versus PPV

Full size image

Rates of successful VMT release and MH closure

Among the three different interventions, PPV had significantly higher rates of VMT release (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38–0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin (Figs. 8, 9). The rate of VMT release with PV was significantly higher than that with ocriplasmin (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.70, p = 0.0001) (Fig. 10); however, only one study [27] compared the MH closure rate and showed that there was no significant difference (risk ratio = 0.82, 95% CI 0.34, 2.02, p = 0.67) between the two groups (Fig. 11). There was no significant difference (risk ratio = 0.87, 95% CI 0.73–1.03, p = 0.11) in the VMT release rate between the two groups in terms of therapeutic efficacy (Fig. 12); however, only one study [29] compared the MH closure rate and showed that PPV had a higher rate of MH closure (risk ratio = 3.44, 95% CI 1.57, 7.58, p = 0.002), as shown in the funnel plot in Fig. 13.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Success rate of ocriplasmin and PPV treatment for VMT release

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Success rate of ocriplasmin and PPV for MH closure

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Success rate of ocriplasmin and PV for VMT release

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Success rate of ocriplasmin and PPV for MH closure

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Success rate of PV and PPV for VMT release

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Success rate of PV and PPV for MH closure

Full size image

In addition, other non-comparative studies were also evaluated, and their success rates were calculated manually (Table 3). Approximately 79 different studies were retrieved, and the highest percentage of patients underwent EVL with ocriplasmin treatment for MH closure and VMT release rate. The MH closure rates were 46%, 47.8% and 95%, whereas the VMT release rates after ocriplasmin, PV and PPV treatment were 46%, 47.8% and 100%, respectively. Adverse events and postoperative complications that occurred after these treatments were also documented in these studies.

Table 3 The individual study-based data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions on macular hole closure rate and VMT release rate
Full size table

Postoperative complications

The postoperative complications reported in different studies are summarized in Table 2. Ocriplasmin treatment resulted in the highest percentage of complications. Complications such as cataracts or lens changes, RTs without RD, intraoperative/postoperative RD, cataract progression/formation, vitreous floaters, photopsia, abnormal color vision test, abnormal ophthalmological examination, and blurred vision, along with their percentages, are listed in Table 2.

Discussion

The current study compared the functional outcomes and risks of complications associated with three different interventions for VMT syndrome and MH treatment: EVL with ocriplasmin, PV and PPV, and MH treatment. The effectiveness of these different treatments was assessed by conducting a meta-analysis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to compare three different interventions for MH and VMT treatment and the first systematic review to analyze the literature regarding the complications that occur as a result of ocriplasmin, PV and PPV as treatments for VMT and MHs. To retrieve relevant literature, several databases and a grey literature searches were conducted. In this meta-analysis, the MH closure rate, VMT release rate and change in VA were the principal outcomes measured. A total of 89 studies were included; among these, 79 were included in the qualitative analysis, and 10 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. The study design, sample size, VMT release rate, MH closure rate, and preoperative and postoperative VA were the characteristics of the included studies that were summarized and documented.

The present study investigated the efficacy of ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV in treating MH and VMT syndrome.  Quantitative analysis revealed no notable variation in the VMT release rate between PV and PPV. However, a significant difference in the MH closure rate was observed, with PPV exhibiting a higher success rate than PV. In the qualitative and individual study-based data analyses, the MH closure rates were 46%, 47.8%, and 95% for ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV, respectively, while the VMT release rates were 46%, 68% and 100% for the same interventions. VA was significantly improved after PPV and PV, but not after ocriplasmin. The findings of this study are consistent with those of previous research, including those reported by Yu et al. [94], showing low VMT release and MH closure rates with ocriplasmin. However, a non-significant reduction in MH size was observed with ocriplasmin treatment. Overall, PPV was found to be the most effective intervention in terms of MH closure and VMT release, whereas PV also showed acceptable results in terms of VMT release compared to ocriplasmin.

In this investigation, not only the functional outcomes but also the associated complications of the different treatments were recorded.  Ocriplasmin treatment was associated with the highest incidence of postoperative complications. This could be attributed to the vitreous liquefaction and protein dissolution at the vitreoretinal interface induced by the ocriplasmin treatment. Floaters and photopsia may occur because of a transient increase in enzymatic activity and vitreoretinal traction, according to Quezada-Ruiz et al. [48]. Previous research has demonstrated that the concentration of ocriplasmin in the vitreous decreases below the quantitative level within seven days after injection;  and hence, most complications are self-limited and improve spontaneously during follow-up [86, 95]. However, severe complications such as cataracts, RD, and RTs may occur as a result of ocriplasmin treatment. Other studies have reported similar results. For instance, a study conducted by Dugel et al. [40] found that ocriplasmin treatment was associated with a higher rate of adverse events than placebo treatment. Similarly, Haller et al. [12] reported that the VMT resolution rate was higher in patients who underwent vitrectomy than in those who underwent ocriplasmin treatment. These findings suggest that ocriplasmin treatment might not be the best option for VMT resolution and that alternative treatment options should be explored.

To mitigate the complications that can arise after ocriplasmin treatment for VMT, safer alternatives such as PPV and PV have been explored. However, the high cost and inherent surgical risks associated with PPV have limited its application to  VMT syndrome. PV, on the other hand, involves the intravitreal injection of a small amount of expansile gas to destabilize the vitreous and promote vitreous liquefaction [18]. This treatment typically requires postural coordination, such as a face-down or drinking bird position. Studies have reported VMT release rates ranging from 56 to 95%, with closure rates of small MHs ranging from 40 to 80% [18, 96]. Despite its effectiveness, potential side effects of PV include MH and RD progression,, which is a concern for both physicians and patients.

The current study analyzing surgery for MH closure has several limitations due to the limited number of available studies, which caused a lack of diversity in the types of studies analyzed. Despite this, all available studies were included in both qualitative and quantitative analyses, regardless of their quality, leading to potential biases. Very few studies were RCTs, and other studies were uncontrolled and potentially prone to confounding factors. The heterogeneity of the studies was substantial due to differences in study populations, inclusion/exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics, study design, clinician's skill, available resources for surgery, adverse event rates, years of research study conduct, and procedures performed. Although the quantitative analysis in the study suggests the need for additional comparative studies to evaluate the efficacy of different techniques for MH closure, very few RCTs are available. The included studies spanned a wide period ranging from 2009 to 2020, and although publication bias and heterogeneity were appropriately controlled, differences in patient indications and baseline characteristics reported in conference abstracts may have influenced the results. Overall, while this study sheds some light on this topic, further research is needed to fully understand the best techniques for MH closure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three treatment modalities for MH closure and VMT release, including PPV, PV, and EVL with ocriplasmin. The study demonstrated that PPV resulted in a higher MH closure rate of 95% and a VMT release rate of 100%. PV showed lower MH closure and VMT release rates of 47.8% and 68%, respectively, but resulted in a significant reduction in MH size and improvement in vision. Ocriplasmin treatment showed a nonsignificant success rate for both MH closure and VMT release, with values of 46% and 46.3%, respectively, but resulted in a significant improvement in vision. The results of this study suggest that PPV is the most favorable treatment for MH closure and VMT release, with a low incidence of serious complications compared to PV and ocriplasmin. Further research involving large multicenter randomized trials is warranted to confirm the MH closure rates and the effects of ocriplasmin and PV on VA. Additionally, assessing the impact of ocriplasmin treatment on patient quality of life through a literature reviews would be worthwhile.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used in this study are included in the main article. Photographs and figures from this study may be released via a written application to the Photographic Laboratory and Clinical Archives Retina Department of Oftalmologia Integral ABC (Nonprofit Medical and Surgical Organization), Av. Paseo de las Palmas 735 suite 303, Lomas de Chapultepec, Mexico City 11000, Mexico, and the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

AAO:

American Academy of Ophthalmology

ARVO:

Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

BCVA:

Best-corrected visual acuity

COS:

Canadian Ophthalmology Society

CME:

Cystoid macular edema

EZ:

Ellipsoid zone

EZD:

Ellipsoid zone deformity

EVL:

Enzymatic vitreolysis

ERM:

Epiretinal membrane

FTMH:

Full-thickness macular hole

ILM:

Internal limiting membrane

IOP:

Intraocular pressure

MH:

Macular hole

OCT:

Optical coherence tomography

ORB:

Outer retinal band

PPV:

Pars plana vitrectomy

PV:

Pneumatic vitreolysis

PVD:

Posterior vitreous detachment

PVR:

Proliferative vitreoretinopathy

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

SFL:

Subfoveal lucency

SRF:

Subretinal fluid

SD-OCT:

Spectral domain-optical coherence tomography

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

RD:

Retinal detachment

RTs:

Retinal tears

SD:

Standard deviation

SMD:

Standardized mean deviation

SFL:

Subfoveal lucency

SRF:

Subretinal fluid

VA:

Visual acuity

VMA:

Vitreomacular adhesion

VMT:

Vitreomacular traction

References

  1. Smiddy WE, et al. Vitrectomy for macular traction caused by incomplete vitreous separation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(5):624–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reese AB, Jones IS, Cooper WC. Vitreomacular traction syndrome confirmed histologically. Am J Ophthalmol. 1970;69(6):975–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McDonald HR, Johnson RN, Schatz H. Surgical results in the vitreomacular traction syndrome. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(8):1397–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shechtman DL, Dunbar MT. The expanding spectrum of vitreomacular traction. Optomet J Am Optomet Assoc. 2009;80(12):681–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chauhan DS, et al. Papillofoveal traction in macular hole formation: the role of optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(1):32–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson MW, Van Newkirk MR, Meyer KA. Perifoveal vitreous detachment is the primary pathogenic event in idiopathic macular hole formation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(2):215–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Duker JS, et al. The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(12):2611–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koerner F, Garweg J. Vitrectomy for macular pucker and vitreomacular traction syndrome. Doc Ophthalmol. 1999;97(3):449–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jackson TL, et al. Pars plana vitrectomy for vitreomacular traction syndrome: a systematic review and metaanalysis of safety and efficacy. Retina. 2013;33(10):2012–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Toklu Y, et al. Anatomic and functional outcome of triamcinolone-assisted 23-gauge vitrectomy in vitreomacular traction syndrome. In: Seminars in ophthalmology. London: Taylor & Francis; 2012.

  11. Stalmans P, et al. Enzymatic vitreolysis with ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular holes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):606–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haller JA, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin for treatment of vitreomacular adhesion: subgroup analyses from two randomized trials. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(1):117–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ozal E, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of pneumatic vitreolysis treatment for symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome. Retina-Vitreus/J Retina-Vitreous. 2022;31(2):1.

  14. Shaikh M, et al. The efficacy and safety profile of ocriplasmin in vitreomacular interface disorders. In: Seminars in ophthalmology. London: Taylor & Francis; 2017.

  15. Hahn P, et al. Safety profile of ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion: a comprehensive analysis of premarketing and postmarketing experiences. Retina. 2015;35(6):1128–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan CK, Wessels IF, Friedrichsen EJ. Treatment of idiopathic macular holes by induced posterior vitreous detachment. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(5):757–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chan CK, et al. Pneumatic vitreolysis for relief of vitreomacular traction. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2017;37(10):1820.

  18. Chan CK, Mein CE, Crosson JN. Pneumatic vitreolysis for management of symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017;12(4):419.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinle NC, et al. Treatment of vitreomacular traction with intravitreal perfluoropropane (C3F8) injection. Retina. 2017;37(4):643–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Özdemir HB, Özdek Ş, Hasanreisoğlu M. Pneumatic vitreolysis for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2019;49(4):201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson MF, et al. Pneumatic vitreolysis for the treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular traction: a prospective pilot study. J Vitreoret Dis. 2018;2(5):282–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kowalski M. Pneumatic vitreolysis using the drinking bird technique for management of vitreomacular traction. University of Split. School of Medicine. Ophthalmology; 2019.

  23. Fouad AN, et al. Effect of pneumatic vitreolysis in management of patients with symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction. Int J Retina Vit. 2022;8(1):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Day S, et al. Intravitreal sulfur hexafluoride injection for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome. Retina. 2016;36(4):733–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schneider EW, Johnson MW. Emerging nonsurgical methods for the treatment of vitreomacular adhesion: a review. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland). 2011;5:1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nambiar S, et al. Comparison of enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) and pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) for symptomatic vitreomacular traction (sVMT). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020;61(7):3722–3722.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Atkins K, Taylor S. Clinical results of Ocriplasmin versus C3F8 gas for symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(12):4049–4049.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar V, et al. Pneumatic vitreolysis versus pars plana vitrectomy in focal symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome: a randomized trial. Retina. 2022;42(7):1277–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abdulmohsen Alreshaid S. Comparison of surgery, intravitreal ocriplasmin and observation in symtomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2015;56(7):1225–5.

  31. Greven MA, et al. Vitrectomy after ocriplasmin for vitreomacular adhesion or macular hole (VAVOOM) study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(9):1211–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Juncal VR, et al. Ocriplasmin versus vitrectomy for the treatment of macular holes. Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;53(5):441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nambiar S, et al. Comparison of enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) and pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) for symptomatic vitreomacular traction (sVMT). Investigat Ophthalmol Vis Sci Conf. 2020:61(7):1.

  34. Scholz P, et al. Comparison of resolution of vitreomacular traction after ocriplasmin treatment or vitrectomy. Retina. 2019;39(1):180–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Steinle N, et al. Intravitreal perfluoropropane gas (C3F8) versus ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(7):3515–3515.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yao Y, et al. The impact of extent of internal limiting membrane peeling on anatomical outcomes of macular hole surgery: results of a 54-week randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(3):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Benz MS, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of microplasmin intravitreous injection to facilitate posterior vitreous detachment before vitrectomy. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):791–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Coskey A, et al. Ocriplasmin for vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) in the clinical setting: rates of vma release, development of macular holes, and visual outcomes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(13):291–291.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dihowm F, MacCumber M. Comparison of outcomes between 20, 23 and 25 gauge vitrectomy for idiopathic macular hole. Int J Retina Vit. 2015;1:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dugel PU, et al. Results of the 2-year ocriplasmin for treatment for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion including macular hole (OASIS) randomized trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2232–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Han R, et al. Treatment of primary full-thickness macular hole by intravitreal injection of expansile gas. Eye. 2019;33(1):136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Feng HL, et al. Intravitreal ocriplasmin in clinical practice: predictors of success, visual outcomes, and complications. Retina. 2018;38(1):128–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kaiser PK, et al. Safety profile of ocriplasmin for the pharmacologic treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion/traction. Retina. 2015;35(6):1111–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hejsek L, et al. Contribution to the investigation macular function for the surgical treatment of idiopathic macular holes. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2011;67(5–6):159–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lim JI, et al. Macula Society collaborative retrospective study of ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Ophthalmol Retina. 2017;1(5):413–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Muqit MM, et al. Intravitreal ocriplasmin for the treatment of vitreomacular traction and macular hole—a study of efficacy and safety based on NICE guidance. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0197072.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nudleman E, et al. Resolution of subretinal fluid and outer retinal changes in patients treated with ocriplasmin. Retina. 2016;36(4):738–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Quezada-Ruiz C, et al. Outer retina reflectivity changes on SD-OCT after intravitreal ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular hole. Retina. 2015;35(6):1144–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schumann RG, et al. Assessment of intravitreal ocriplasmin treatment for vitreomacular traction in clinical practice. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:2081–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sharma P, Rahimy E, Regillo CD. Pharmacologic closure rate of full thickness macular hole with ocriplasmin—1 year follow-up data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(12):4046–4046.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Stalmans P, et al. Interim results from INJECT: investigation of JETREA in patients with confirmed vitreomacular traction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(7):1237–1237.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Willekens K, et al. Improved efficacy of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction release and transient changes in optic disk morphology. Retina. 2015;35(6):1135–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Primavera V, et al. Intravitreal injection of air for the treatment of vitreomacular traction. Retinal Cases and Brief Reports. 2020;14(2):141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Čokl N, Globočnik Petrović M. Intravitreal injection of perfluoropropane is more efficacious than sulfur hexafluoride in releasing vitreomacular traction. Acta Clin Croatica. 2018;57(2):327–33.

  55. Wickens JC, Shah GK. Outcomes of macular hole surgery and shortened face down positioning. Retina. 2006;26(8):902–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Anderson MF, et al. Intravitreal gas injection for the treatment of full-thickness macular holes. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55(1):e13–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Steel DH, et al. Ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction in clinical practice: the INJECT Study. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2021;41(2):266.

  58. Zandi S, et al. Morphological reconstitution and persistent changes after intravitreal ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular hole. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2020;36(2):126–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Baumann C, et al. Anatomical and functional outcomes of pneumatic vitreolysis for treatment of vitreomacular traction with and without macular holes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(7):2209–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hejsek L, et al. Microincision 25G pars plana vitrectomy with peeling of the inner limiting membrane and air tamponade in idiopathic macular hole. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017;27(1):93–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cacciamani A, et al. Short-term changes in posterior vitreous cortex following intravitreal ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome: a prospective study. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40:185–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Cacciamani A, et al. Longitudinal microperimetry evaluation after intravitreal ocriplasmin injection for vitreomacular traction. Retina. 2017;37(10):1832–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gruchociak S, et al. Comparing intravitreal air and gas for the treatment of vitreomacular traction. Retina. 2020;40(11):2140–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Khanani AM, et al. Ocriplasmin treatment leads to symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion/vitreomacular traction resolution in the real-world setting: the phase IV ORBIT study. Ophthalmology Retina. 2019;3(1):32–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Iuliano L, et al. Reduced perfusion density of superficial retinal capillary plexus after intravitreal ocriplasmin injection for idiopathic vitreomacular traction. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Arrigo A, et al. Vitreomacular traction quantitative cutoffs for the assessment of resolution after ocriplasmin intravitreal treatment. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Chatziralli IP, et al. Complications of intravitreal ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular hole: a prospective spectral-domain optical coherence tomography study. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2016;35(4):263–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bormann C, et al. Experience with ocriplasmin in patients with vitreomacular traction syndrome: a retrospective study of 10 patients. Retinal Cases Brief Rep. 2020;14(4):377–80.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wertheimer C, et al. Impact of preinjection spectral domain optical coherence tomography findings in the use of intravitreal ocriplasmin in a clinical setting. Ophthalmologica. 2018;239(1):11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Pirani V, et al. Flare changes after intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin in symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2019;63:255–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Meyer JC, et al. Early evolution of the vitreomacular interface and clinical efficacy after ocriplasmin injection for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Ophthal Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2015;46(2):209–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Makris L, Kamal A. One year retrospective analysis of ocriplasmin for the treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular traction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58(8):224–224.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mastropasqua R, et al. Comparison of guided and unguided ocriplasmin injection for the treatment of vitreomacular traction: a preliminary study. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:1.

  74. Tadayoni R, et al. Assessment of anatomical and functional outcomes with ocriplasmin treatment in patients with vitreomacular traction with or without macular holes: results of OVIID-1 trial. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2019;39(12):2341.

  75. Seamone ME, et al. Pneumatic vitreolysis with intravitreal air for focal vitreomacular traction. J Vitreoret Dis. 2021;5(4):348–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Warrow D, et al. Intravitreal ocriplasmin for symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(13):319–319.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Itoh Y, Ehlers JP. Ellipsoid zone mapping and outer retinal characterization following intravitreal ocriplasmin. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2016;36(12):2290.

  78. Kannan NB, et al. Outcome of 2 cc pure sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade for macular hole surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Cereda MG, et al. Ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction: looking outside the macula: a wide-field optical coherence tomography study. Retina. 2018;38(8):1541–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Barca F, et al. Italian real-life experience on the use of ocriplasmin. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2018;3(1): e000110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Paul C, et al. Calculating the individual probability of successful ocriplasmin treatment in eyes with VMT syndrome: a multivariable prediction model from the EXPORT study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(8):1092–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Paul C, et al. Calculating the individual probability of successful ocriplasmin treatment in eyes with vitreomacular traction—validation and refinement of a multivariable prediction model. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(7):e0270120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Pessoa B, et al. Enzymatic vitreolysis for the treatment of tractional diabetic macular edema. Therap Adv Ophthalmol. 2019;11:2515841419869511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Kim BT, et al. Initial outcomes following intravitreal ocriplasmin for treatment of symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2013;44(4):334–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Schumann RG, et al. Vitrectomy for persistent macular holes following ocriplasmin injection: a comparative multicenter study. Retina. 2017;37(12):2295–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Novack RL, et al. Safety of intravitreal ocriplasmin for focal vitreomacular adhesion in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(4):796–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Sharma P, et al. Efficacy of intravitreal ocriplasmin on vitreomacular traction and full-thickness macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(5):861–867. e2.

  88. Figueira J, et al. The Portuguese experience with ocriplasmin in clinical practice. Ophthalmic Res. 2016;56(4):186–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Tschuppert S, Gerding H. Transient subfoveal fluid and visual loss after ocriplasmin. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2016;233(04):453–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Reiss B, Smithen L, Mansour S. Transient vision loss after ocriplasmin injection. Retina. 2015;35(6):1107–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Singh RP, et al. Anatomical and visual outcomes following ocriplasmin treatment for symptomatic vitreomacular traction syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(3):356–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Manousaridis K, Peter-Reichart S, Mennel S. Ocriplasmin treatment for vitreomacular traction in real life: can the indication spectrum be expanded? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:1907–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Chaudhary K, et al. Proportion of patients with macular hole surgery who would have been favorable ocriplasmin candidates: a retrospective analysis. Retina. 2017;37(1):76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Yu BE, et al. The effectiveness of ocriplasmin versus surgery for the treatment of macular holes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(4):2003–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Abraham S, et al. Unclear retinopathy after intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin. Ophthalmologe. 2016;113:156–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Yu G, et al. Efficacy and safety of treatment options for vitreomacular traction. Retina. 2016;36(7):1260–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our deep appreciation to the technical staff of the Retina Department of Oftalmologia Integral ABC (Nonprofit Medical and Surgical Organization), Mexico City, Mexico, which is affiliated with the Postgraduate Studies Division of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Funding

No funding or grant support was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Retina Department of Oftalmologia Integral ABC (Nonprofit Medical and Surgical Organization), Which is Affiliated with the Postgraduate Studies Division of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Av. Paseo de las Palmas 735 Suite 303, Lomas de Chapultepec, 11000, Mexico City, Mexico

    Miguel A. Quiroz-Reyes, Erick A. Quiroz-Gonzalez & Miguel A. Quiroz-Gonzalez

  2. Institute of Ophthalmology, Fundacion Conde de Valenciana, (Nonprofit Organization), Which is Affiliated with the Postgraduate Studies Division of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Av. Chimalpopoca 14. Col. Obrera, 06800, Mexico City, Mexico

    Erick A. Quiroz-Gonzalez

  3. Juarez Hospital, Public Assistance Institution (Nonprofit Organization), Av. Politecnico Nacional 5160, Colonia Magdalena de las Salinas, 07760, Mexico City, Mexico

    Virgilio Lima-Gomez

Authors
  1. Miguel A. Quiroz-Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erick A. Quiroz-Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel A. Quiroz-Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Virgilio Lima-Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MAQR, study conception, writing of the manuscript, dataset interpretation, statistical analysis interpretation, final revision, conclusions; EAQG, figure artwork, tables, material compilation; MAQG, figure and table construction; VLG, statistical analysis, and final revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Quiroz-Reyes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and received full approval from the appropriate research ethics committee, institutional review committee, and institutional teaching department (the institution do not provide reference numbers for meta-analysis studies).

Institutional review board statement

This study was conducted in the Retina Department of the Oftalmologia Integral ABC Institution, Mexico City, Mexico. The institutional review board approved the study per institutional guidelines. No reference number is provided for systematic reviews and meta-analyses by this institution.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Literature search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Modified Downs and Black checklists to assess the quality of the included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quiroz-Reyes, M.A., Quiroz-Gonzalez, E.A., Quiroz-Gonzalez, M.A. et al. Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes. Int J Retin Vitr 9, 33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-023-00472-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-023-00472-x

Keywords

International Journal of Retina and Vitreous

ISSN: 2056-9920

Contact us