Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy versus 20-gauge vitrectomy for vitreoretinal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy is appealing to vitreoretinal surgeons around the world. However, its use versus 20-gauge vitreoretinal surgery is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and functional outcomes of transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy versus 20-gauge vitrectomy for vitreoretinal surgery.

Methods

Data sources, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, were searched to identify potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software. The primary factors included patients’ discomfort, operating time and early postoperative complications. Visual acuity and surgically induced astigmatism were chosen as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 471 participants with 479 eyes in eight trials between 2005 and 2011 were analyzed. Transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy was associated with significantly fewer patients suffering from postoperative discomfort at 1 day (odds ratio [OR] 0.07; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 0.49; p = 0.007) and 7 days (OR 0.14; 95 % CI 0.03 to 0.73; p = 0.02) follow-up, and was more effective in reducing surgically induced astigmatism (mean difference −0.23D; 95 % CI −0.31 to −0.15; p < 0.00001) compared to 20-gauge vitrectomy. The sutureless group achieved shorter wound opening (mean difference −1.97 minutes; 95 % CI −2.69 to −1.25; p < 0.00001) as well as wound closure time (mean difference −4.55 minutes; 95 % CI −5.43 to −3.66; p < 0.00001), but the overall surgery time was comparable (mean difference −0.14 minutes; 95 % CI −3.52 to 3.24; p = 0.93). There were no significant differences in the complication rates between the two groups with the exception of postoperative hypotony, which was more likely with the sutureless group (OR 3.73; 95 % CI 1.43 to 9.76; p = 0.007).

Conclusions

According to the present data, transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy offered significantly less postoperative discomfort and decreased surgically induced astigmatism without increasing the risk of vision-threatening complications. Further trials with contemporary equipment and larger sample size are suggested to confirm this conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fujii GY, De Juan E Jr, Humayun MS, Pieramici DJ, Chang TS, Awh C, Ng E, Barnes A, Wu SL, Sommerville DN (2002) A new 25-gauge instrument system for transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy surgery. Ophthalmology 109:1807–1813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eckardt C (2005) Transconjunctival sutureless 23-gauge vitrectomy. Retina 25:208–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Avitabile T, Castiglione F, Bonfiglio V, Castiglione F (2010) Transconjunctival sutureless 25-gauge versus 20-gauge standard vitrectomy: correlation between corneal topography and ultrasound biomicroscopy measurements of sclerotomy sites. Cornea 29:19–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang CJ, Chang YH, Chiang SY, Lin LT (2005) Comparison of clear corneal phacoemulsification combined with 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy and standard 20-gauge vitrectomy for patients with cataract and vitreoretinal diseases. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1198–1207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kellner L, Wimpissinger B, Stolba U, Brannath W, Binder S (2007) 25-gauge vs 20-gauge system for pars plana vitrectomy: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol 91:945–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nagpal M, Wartikar S, Nagpal K (2009) Comparison of clinical outcomes and wound dynamics of sclerotomy ports of 20, 25, and 23 gauge vitrectomy. Retina 29:225–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Okamoto F, Okamoto C, Sakata N, Hiratsuka K, Yamane N, Hiraoka T, Kaji Y, Oshika T (2007) Changes in corneal topography after 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy versus after 20-gauge standard vitrectomy. Ophthalmology 114:2138–2141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rizzo S, Genovesi-Ebert F, Murri S, Belting C, Vento A, Cresti F, Manca ML (2006) 25-gauge, sutureless vitrectomy and standard 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy in idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: a comparative pilot study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:472–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Romano MR, Angi M, Valldeperas X, Costagliola C, Vinciguerra P (2011) Twenty-three-gauge pars plana vitrectomy, Densiron-68, and 360° endolaser versus combined 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy, scleral buckle, and SF6 for pseudophakic retinal detachment with inferior retinal breaks. Retina 31:686–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wickham L, Bunce C, Kwan AS, Bainbridge J, Aylward GW (2010) A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the post-operative pain experience following vitrectomy with a 20-gauge system and the 25-gauge transconjunctival system. Br J Ophthalmol 94:36–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wimpissinger B, Kellner L, Brannath W, Krepler K, Stolba U, Mihalics C, Binder S (2008) 23-Gauge versus 20-gauge system for pars plana vitrectomy: a prospective randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol 92:1483–1487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Part 2: General methods for Cochrane Reviews. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. (Accessed 17 February 2012)

  14. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 28:1290–1299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kadonosono K, Yamakawa T, Uchio E, Yanagi Y, Tamaki Y, Araie M (2006) Comparison of visual function after epiretinal membrane removal by 20-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 142:513–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mentens R, Stalmans P (2009) Comparison of postoperative comfort in 20 gauge versus 23 gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 311:5–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Misra A, Ho-Yen G, Burton RL (2009) 23-gauge sutureless vitrectomy and 20-gauge vitrectomy: a case series comparison. Eye (Lond) 23:1187–1191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sandali O, El Sanharawi M, Lecuen N, Barale PO, Bonnel S, Basli E, Borderie V, Laroche L, Monin C (2011) 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy in epiretinal membrane surgery: a comparative study of 553 cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1811–1819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nam DH, Ku M, Sohn HJ, Lee DY (2010) Minimal fluid–air exchange in combined 23-gauge sutureless vitrectomy, phacoemulsification, and intraocular lens implantation. Retina 30:125–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamane S, Kadonosono K, Inoue M, Kobayashi S, Watanabe Y, Arakawa A (2011) Effect of intravitreal gas tamponade for sutureless vitrectomy wounds: three-dimensional corneal and anterior segment optical coherence tomography study. Retina 31:702–706

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rizzo S, Genovesi-Ebert F, Vento A, Miniaci S, Cresti F, Palla M (2007) Modified incision in 25-gauge vitrectomy in the creation of a tunneled airtight sclerotomy: an ultrabiomicroscopic study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1281–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Taban M, Sharma S, Ventura AA, Kaiser PK (2009) Evaluation of wound closure in oblique 23-gauge sutureless sclerotomies with Visante optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 147:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hsu J, Chen E, Gupta O, Fineman MS, Garg SJ, Regillo CD (2008) Hypotony after 25-gauge vitrectomy using oblique versus direct cannula insertions in fluid-filled eyes. Retina 28:937–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kunimoto DY, Kaiser RS (2007) Incidence of endophthalmitis after 20- and 25-gauge vitrectomy. Ophthalmology 114:2133–2137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, Dev S, Shaikh S, Mittra RA, Arevalo JF, Kychenthal A, Acar N (2008) Endophthalmitis after 25-gauge and 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy: incidence and outcomes. Retina 28:138–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hu AY, Bourges JL, Shah SP, Gupta A, Gonzales CR, Oliver SC, Schwartz SD (2009) Endophthalmitis after pars plana vitrectomy: a 20- and 25-gauge comparison. Ophthalmology 116:1360–1365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, Acar N, Dev S, Shaikh S, Mittra RA, Arevalo JF, Kychenthal A, Kunselman A (2011) Incidence of endophthalmitis after 20-gauge vs 23-gauge vs 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:377–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Oshima Y, Kadonosono K, Yamaji H, Inoue M, Yoshida M, Kimura H, Ohji M, Shiraga F, Hamasaki T, Japan Microincision Vitrectomy Surgery Study Group (2010) Multicenter survey with a systematic overview of acute-onset endophthalmitis after transconjunctival microincision vitrectomy surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 150:716–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu L, Berrocal MH, Arévalo JF, Carpentier C, Rodriguez FJ, Alezzandrini A, Farah ME, Roca JA, Maia M, Saravia M, Morales-Cantón V, Graue-Wiechers F, Cardillo JA (2011) Endophthalmitis after pars plana vitrectomy: results of the Pan American Collaborative Retina Study Group. Retina 31:673–678

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bahrani HM, Fazelat AA, Thomas M, Hirose T, Kroll AJ, Lou PL, Ryan EA (2010) Endophthalmitis in the era of small gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy–meta analysis and review of literature. Semin Ophthalmol 25:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Parolini B, Romanelli F, Prigione G, Pertile G (2009) Incidence of endophthalmitis in a large series of 23-gauge and 20-gauge transconjunctival pars plana vitrectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:895–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fang SY, DeBoer CM, Humayun MS (2008) Performance analysis of new-generation vitreous cutters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahn J, Woo SJ, Park KH (2011) A new sclerotomy depressor to enhance wound sealing in transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy. Retina 31:623–625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No authors have financial/conflicting interests to disclose. There is no funding or financial support. The authors have full control of all primary data and we agree to allow Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review our data upon request.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai First People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University, 100 Haining Road, Shanghai, 200080, China

    Zhi-Hua Zhang, Hai-Yun Liu, Xun Xu & Kun Liu

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Rudolph Foundation Clinic, Vienna, Austria

    Barbara Wimpissinger

  3. Ophthalmology Unit, Santa Marta Hospital, Catania University, Catania, Italy

    Teresio Avitabile

Authors
  1. Zhi-Hua Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hai-Yun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Wimpissinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresio Avitabile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kun Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, ZH., Liu, HY., Wimpissinger, B. et al. Transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy versus 20-gauge vitrectomy for vitreoretinal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 681–688 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2077-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2077-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation