The effectiveness of ocriplasmin versus surgery for the treatment of macular holes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review looking at the effects of ocriplasmin compared to pars plana vitrectomy on macular holes to assess the effectiveness of the treatment options. Methods: Literature was searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Clinical Trials.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses until June 12, 2018. Conferences held through Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Canadian Society of Ophthalmology, and American Academy of Ophthalmology were searched until June 18, 2018. A total of 208 records were screened leaving 26. One author independently reviewed them for quality and extracted data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. The adverse events, MH closure rate, change in MH size, and the extent to which the patients’ visual acuity is restored by each treatment option; ocriplasmin and vitrectomy. Results: Twenty-six articles were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis results showed a 34% closure of macular holes after ocriplasmin treatment compared to 92% after vitrectomy. A significant improvement in visual acuity was seen after vitrectomy (SMD = −1.42; CI: [−1.98, −0.86]) as well as the ocriplasmin treatment (SMD = −0.73; CI: [−0.98, −0.48]). Conclusions: Results suggested 92% macular hole closure after vitrectomy compared to 34% after ocriplasmin. A significant improvement in visual acuity of patients was seen after both treatments. More good quality randomized controlled trials are required to make strong conclusions.