Table 2 Characteristics of included (a) RCTs, (b) non-RCTs
References | Study place | Mean age (years) ± SD group1/group2 | Sample size | Follow-up (months) | Type of intervention | Adjuvants dye(s) | Outcome measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(A) | |||||||
Hillenkamp et al. [19] | Germany | 67.0 ± 7.0 | 60 | 4 | PPV with ERM peeling without ICG versus with ICG | ICG | BCVA, metamorphopsia, CMT, and residual or recurrent macular ERM |
|  |  | 71.0 ± 6.0 |  |  |  |  |  |
Ripandelli et al. [28] | Italy | 72.3 ± 8.3 | 60 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | BBG for ILM peeling | Central retinal sensitivity, BCVA and OCT parameters |
Kofod et al. [20] | Denmark | 69.0 ± 3.0 | 53 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling versus Watchful waiting | BBG for ERM peeling group | BCVA, and CMT |
66.0 ± 6.0 | |||||||
Sola et al. [21] | Korea | 70.6 (53.0–81.0) | 22 | 24 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | TB in all patients | ILM extraction pattern, BCVA, CMT, ERM recurrence, and adverse events |
| Â | Â | (Median values) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Tranos et al. [22] | Greece | 70.0 ± 6.0 | 102 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | TB 0.15% for ERM and BBG for ILM peeling | Mean change in BCVA (distance and near), change in metamorphopsia and change in SD-OCT characteristics |
|  |  | 68.0 ± 12.0 |  |  |  |  |  |
DeNovelli et al. [23] | Brazil | 66.0 ± 9.6 | 63 | 6 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | BBG for ILM only | Functional and anatomical outcome |
|  |  | 67.0 ± 9.4 |  |  |  |  |  |
Russo et al. [24] | Italy | 72.7 ± 7.5 | 38 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | Combination of 0.025% BBG and 0.15% TB (MBD) both groups | Foveal and perifoveal retinal sensitivity, visual acuity, and CMT, and adverse ocular events |
|  |  | 69.8 ± 6.5 |  |  |  |  |  |
Aydin et al. [25] | Turkey | 67.5 ± 5.9 | 36 | 4 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | TB 0.06% both groups | Metamorphopsia, BCVA and macular volume |
|  |  | 67.7 ± 6.2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Jatoi et al. [26] | Pakistan | NA | 44 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | NA | BCVA and CMT |
Gabriel et al. [27] | Austria | 69.0 ± 8.0 | 51 | 3 | PPV with ERM peeling versus ERM + ILM peeling | (MBD) for both groups | Mean SCP, FAZ, CMT, retinal volume, and BCVA |
|  |  | 70.0 ± 5.0 |  |  |  |  |  |
(B) | |||||||
Arndt et al. [30] | France | 63.4 ± 9.2 | 104 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling | NA | Metamorphopsia, BCVA |
Garweg et al. [29] | Switzerland | 70.1 ± 5.2 | 43 | 12 | PPV with ERM + ILM peeling | IFCG 0.5% for group 1 and 0.15% TB for group 2 | BCVA (distance and near), macular visual-field indices |
|  |  | 70.3 ± 7.5 |  |  |  |  |  |
Kinoshita et al. [31] | Japan | 70.0 ± 0.9 | 75 | 24 | PPV with ERM + ILM peeling | TA | Metamorphopsia, BCVA, and OCT parameters |
Shahzadi et al. [32] | Pakistan | 72.0 ± 5.0 | 30 | 6 | PPV with ERM removal without ILM peeling | NA | BCVA, CMT and foveal thickness on SD OCT, and recurrence of ERM |
Ehlers et al. [33] | United States | 68.4 | 76 | 12 | PPV with ERM peeling + optional ILM peeling | ICG and/or TA in all participants | BCVA, CST, and complications including ERM recurrence |
Scupola et al. [34] | Italy | 72 ± 14.5 | 49 | 12 | PPV with ERM + ILM peeling | TA for ERM and BBG Peel for ILM | SANFL, and long term decrease of RNFL thickness |
Jonna et al. [35] | United States | 67.4 ± 5.6 | 40 | 60 | PPV with ERM peeling | TA and/or ICG | RNFL layer and GC-IPL thicknesses using SD-OCT |
Zobor et al. [36] | Austria | 71.1 ± 6.3 | 54 | 3 | PPV with ERM + ILM peeling | View-ILM dye | Choroidal thickness, CRT, BCVA |
Datlinger et al. [37] | Austria | 71.0 ± 6.7 | 32 | 3 | PPV with combined ERM and ILM peeling | View-ILM (Alchimia, Italy) | Changes in PFD before (baseline) and after surgery |