| [Objective]To evaluate the efficiency and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab combined with laser versus laser alone for treatment of macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion by meta-analysis.[Methods]Eligible studies were identified via a systematic searching of electronic databases, including CNKI, CBM, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science.and the Cochrane Library, without status or other limits up to January 20,2015.Selection Criteria:Randomized clinical control trials of comparing intravitreal ranibizumab combined with laser versus laser alone for treating patients with RVO-associated macular edema were included. Eligible studies should included best corrected visual acuity(BCVA) and central macular thickness(CMT).[Results]Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Comparing IVR and GLP versus GLP in improving LogMAR BCVA at 1 month (weighted mean difference [WMD],4.897; 95% confidence interval [CI],-4.827 to 14.621; P=0.324),3 months (WMD, 2.35; 95% CI,-0.24 to 5.30; P=0.073), and 6 months during the follow-up (WMD,2.37; 95% CI,-0.457 to 5.198; P=0.1) in patients with RVO-associated macular edema. Comparing IVR and GLP versus GLP in reducing CMT at 1 month (weighted mean difference [WMD],-0.189; 95% confidence interval [CI],-812 to 433; P=0.551),3 months (WMD,-0.651; 95% CI,-1.696 to 0.396; P=0.222), and 6 months during the follow-up (WMD,-0.361; 95% CI,-1.103 to 0.381; P=0.1) in patients with RVO-associated macular edema. Comparing IVR and GLP versus GLP, there was no statistical significance in either improving VA values or reducing CMT values throughout the follow-up periods. The occurrence of high intraocular pressure (IOP) and other side effects were not mentioned.[Conclusion]The meta-analysis demonstrated that intravitreal ranibizumab combined with laser was effective in treating patients with BRVO-associated macular edema in BCVA and CMT, but without any significant advantages over GLP. |
PDF Full Text Request