G A Williams1. 1. Beaumont Eye Institute, Oakland University, Royal Oak, Michigan, MI 48073-6710, USA. gwilliams@beaumont.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To discuss the evolution and current status of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy instrumentation. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: There are multiple small case series describing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications associated with 25- and 23-gauge vitrectomy. These studies suggest that small-gauge vitrectomy may shorten operating time, improve patient comfort, and speed visual recovery. However, increased complication rates involving hypotony and endophthalmitis have been reported. There are no level 1 evidence-based studies comparing the efficacy and safety of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy. CONCLUSION: 25- and 23-gauge vitrectomy techniques may shorten operating time, improve patient comfort, and speed visual recovery. However, larger and better designed evidence-based studies are required to better understand relative values of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy.
PURPOSE: To discuss the evolution and current status of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy instrumentation. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: There are multiple small case series describing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications associated with 25- and 23-gauge vitrectomy. These studies suggest that small-gauge vitrectomy may shorten operating time, improve patient comfort, and speed visual recovery. However, increased complication rates involving hypotony and endophthalmitis have been reported. There are no level 1 evidence-based studies comparing the efficacy and safety of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy. CONCLUSION: 25- and 23-gauge vitrectomy techniques may shorten operating time, improve patient comfort, and speed visual recovery. However, larger and better designed evidence-based studies are required to better understand relative values of 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy.
Authors: Bruno Diniz; Ramiro M Ribeiro; Rodrigo B Fernandes; Jaw-Chyng Lue; Anderson G Teixeira; Mauricio Maia; Mark S Humayun Journal: Ophthalmologica Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 3.250