Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Purpose. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify and review studies comparing SF6 to C3F8 as a tamponade agent in the intraoperative management of macular holes. Methods. Publications up to October 2018 that focused on macular hole surgery in terms of primary closure, complications,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1820850 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832560899888513024 |
|---|---|
| author | Idan Hecht Michael Mimouni Eytan Z. Blumenthal Yoreh Barak |
| author_facet | Idan Hecht Michael Mimouni Eytan Z. Blumenthal Yoreh Barak |
| author_sort | Idan Hecht |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify and review studies comparing SF6 to C3F8 as a tamponade agent in the intraoperative management of macular holes. Methods. Publications up to October 2018 that focused on macular hole surgery in terms of primary closure, complications, and clinical outcomes were included. Forest plots were created using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Analysis was performed separately for SF6 and C3F8. A random effects model was used, and corresponding I2 heterogeneity estimates were calculated. Results. Nine pertinent publications studying a total of 4,715 patients were identified in 2000 to 2017, including two randomized studies (n=206), two prospective studies (n=170), and five retrospective or registry-based studies. Similar rates of closure between SF6 and C3F8 were reported in eight out of nine studies, regardless of subgroup analyses. All studies reporting visual outcomes showed similar results when comparing SF6 to C3F8 at one to six months of follow-up. Neither agent was clearly associated with increased risk of ocular hypertension, cataract formation, or other adverse events. Meta-analytic pooling of the closure rates in the SF6 group resulted in 91.73% (95% confidence interval: 88.40 to 94.55, I2: 38.03%), and for C3F8, the closure rate was 88.36% (95% confidence interval: 85.88 to 90.63, I2: 0.0%). Conclusions. Both SF6 and C3F8 appear to have achieved similar visual outcomes and primary closure rates and neither was associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Considering the more rapid visual recovery with SF6, there appears to be no evidence to support C3F8 as the tamponade agent of choice for macular hole surgery. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c649a35f02a943489888aaa3f77598d4 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-004X 2090-0058 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj-art-c649a35f02a943489888aaa3f77598d42025-02-03T01:26:31ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582019-01-01201910.1155/2019/18208501820850Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisIdan Hecht0Michael Mimouni1Eytan Z. Blumenthal2Yoreh Barak3Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, IsraelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, IsraelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, IsraelPurpose. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify and review studies comparing SF6 to C3F8 as a tamponade agent in the intraoperative management of macular holes. Methods. Publications up to October 2018 that focused on macular hole surgery in terms of primary closure, complications, and clinical outcomes were included. Forest plots were created using a weighted summary of proportion meta-analysis. Analysis was performed separately for SF6 and C3F8. A random effects model was used, and corresponding I2 heterogeneity estimates were calculated. Results. Nine pertinent publications studying a total of 4,715 patients were identified in 2000 to 2017, including two randomized studies (n=206), two prospective studies (n=170), and five retrospective or registry-based studies. Similar rates of closure between SF6 and C3F8 were reported in eight out of nine studies, regardless of subgroup analyses. All studies reporting visual outcomes showed similar results when comparing SF6 to C3F8 at one to six months of follow-up. Neither agent was clearly associated with increased risk of ocular hypertension, cataract formation, or other adverse events. Meta-analytic pooling of the closure rates in the SF6 group resulted in 91.73% (95% confidence interval: 88.40 to 94.55, I2: 38.03%), and for C3F8, the closure rate was 88.36% (95% confidence interval: 85.88 to 90.63, I2: 0.0%). Conclusions. Both SF6 and C3F8 appear to have achieved similar visual outcomes and primary closure rates and neither was associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Considering the more rapid visual recovery with SF6, there appears to be no evidence to support C3F8 as the tamponade agent of choice for macular hole surgery.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1820850 |
| spellingShingle | Idan Hecht Michael Mimouni Eytan Z. Blumenthal Yoreh Barak Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Journal of Ophthalmology |
| title | Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) versus Perfluoropropane (C3F8) in the Intraoperative Management of Macular Holes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | sulfur hexafluoride sf6 versus perfluoropropane c3f8 in the intraoperative management of macular holes a systematic review and meta analysis |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1820850 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT idanhecht sulfurhexafluoridesf6versusperfluoropropanec3f8intheintraoperativemanagementofmacularholesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT michaelmimouni sulfurhexafluoridesf6versusperfluoropropanec3f8intheintraoperativemanagementofmacularholesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT eytanzblumenthal sulfurhexafluoridesf6versusperfluoropropanec3f8intheintraoperativemanagementofmacularholesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yorehbarak sulfurhexafluoridesf6versusperfluoropropanec3f8intheintraoperativemanagementofmacularholesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |