BACKGROUND: After conventional buckling procedures for pseudophakic retinal detachment the primary reattachment rate is 60 to 90% according to literature. Primary vitrectomy may be advantageous in these cases. The purpose of this study was to investigate the spectrum and role of potential side effects like anisometropia and diplopia, to find arguments for or against primary vitrectomy. Also risk factors for pseudophakic retinal detachment were analyzed in our study group, because they may be different from former studies, which were mostly undertake at the time of ec cataract extraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data from 115 patients (120 eyes) with pseudophakic retinal detachment, who undergone buckling procedure between 1991 and 1996 were retrospectively reviewed. We analyzed the retinal reattachment rate, choroidal detachment, postoperative visual acuity, refraction, occurrence of diplopia, anisometropia and metamorphopsia. RESULTS: The primary retinal reattachment rate was 83.3%. There was a retinal redetachment rate of 16.7%. The primary PVR-rate was 4.2%. After the first reoperation an reattachment rate of 91.6% could be achieved, after the second one an overall rate of 95%. A choroidal detachment occurred in 29.2%. Postoperatively (26.5 months +/- 17.2) we found a cellophane maculopathy in 26.5% with consecutive metamorphopsia in 12.1%. 13 patients (15.9%) complained about diplopia, which had to be corrected by operation in 2 cases and prismatic glasses in 4 cases. Anisometropia could be deserved in 16.4%. The buckling procedures caused refractive changes of -1.80 dpt +/- 1.78 after an encircling band and +0.38 dpt +/- 1.01 after a plombage (average -1.05 +/- 1.86). 20% of patients treated with an encircling band developed anisometropia and only 8.3% of patients with a plombage. Postoperatively the visual acuity raised significantly from 0.3 to 0.6 (median). Best visual recovery could be observed in patients, who underwent only one operation. CONCLUSIONS: The primary retinal reattachment rate in pseudophakic retinal redetachment after conventional buckling procedures in our patients are comparable to those in the literature. In spite of phacoemulsification the risk-factors for pseudophakic retinal detachment has not changed. A considerable number of patients complained about postoperative complications like anisometropia and diplopia, which could be avoided by primary vitrectomy. To compare anatomic and functional results of both procedures a randomized prospective study should be undertaken.
BACKGROUND: After conventional buckling procedures for pseudophakic retinal detachment the primary reattachment rate is 60 to 90% according to literature. Primary vitrectomy may be advantageous in these cases. The purpose of this study was to investigate the spectrum and role of potential side effects like anisometropia and diplopia, to find arguments for or against primary vitrectomy. Also risk factors for pseudophakic retinal detachment were analyzed in our study group, because they may be different from former studies, which were mostly undertake at the time of ec cataract extraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data from 115 patients (120 eyes) with pseudophakic retinal detachment, who undergone buckling procedure between 1991 and 1996 were retrospectively reviewed. We analyzed the retinal reattachment rate, choroidal detachment, postoperative visual acuity, refraction, occurrence of diplopia, anisometropia and metamorphopsia. RESULTS: The primary retinal reattachment rate was 83.3%. There was a retinal redetachment rate of 16.7%. The primary PVR-rate was 4.2%. After the first reoperation an reattachment rate of 91.6% could be achieved, after the second one an overall rate of 95%. A choroidal detachment occurred in 29.2%. Postoperatively (26.5 months +/- 17.2) we found a cellophane maculopathy in 26.5% with consecutive metamorphopsia in 12.1%. 13 patients (15.9%) complained about diplopia, which had to be corrected by operation in 2 cases and prismatic glasses in 4 cases. Anisometropia could be deserved in 16.4%. The buckling procedures caused refractive changes of -1.80 dpt +/- 1.78 after an encircling band and +0.38 dpt +/- 1.01 after a plombage (average -1.05 +/- 1.86). 20% of patients treated with an encircling band developed anisometropia and only 8.3% of patients with a plombage. Postoperatively the visual acuity raised significantly from 0.3 to 0.6 (median). Best visual recovery could be observed in patients, who underwent only one operation. CONCLUSIONS: The primary retinal reattachment rate in pseudophakic retinal redetachment after conventional buckling procedures in our patients are comparable to those in the literature. In spite of phacoemulsification the risk-factors for pseudophakic retinal detachment has not changed. A considerable number of patients complained about postoperative complications like anisometropia and diplopia, which could be avoided by primary vitrectomy. To compare anatomic and functional results of both procedures a randomized prospective study should be undertaken.