AIM: To compare the efficacy of prophylactic vitrectomy for acute retinal necrosis syndrome(ARN) with routine treatment in Chinese patients, thereby investigate the necessity of prophylactic vitrectomy for ARN. METHODS: Thirty patients (37 eyes) were retrospectively included in this study. The eyes were divided into 2 groups by treatment, including routine treatment, which consisted of antiviral medication and vitrectomy after retinal detachment (RD) (n=21), and prophylactic vitrectomy, which consisted of antiviral medication and vitrectomy for the prevention of RD performed during the active inflammatory phase (n=16). The extent of necrosis was determined by fundus photographs at the time of presentation (for eyes with mild vitreous opacity) or the drawings in the operation records. Necrosis of the 37 eyes was divided into 3 grades, including peripheral, middle-peripheral and extensive. The follow-up period ranged from 8 to 57 months. Differences in visual acuity and necrosis between groups were identified using independent samples t-test. RESULTS: Necrosis was more extensive in the routine treatment group than in the prophylactic vitrectomy group (P<0.05). In the routine treatment group, conservative treatment improved necrosis and prevented RD in 6 eyes (29%). Seven eyes (33%) obtained anatomical success, but retinal redetachment occurred in 8 eyes (57%). There were also 5 eyes (24%) developed ocular hypotony or atrophy. Ten eyes (48%) achieved equal or increased visual acuity. In the prophylactic vitrectomy group, RD occurred in 2 eyes (13%). Twelve eyes (75%) were completely anatomically successful, and 10 eyes underwent silicone oil removal. Only one eye (6%) became ocular hypotony. Fourteen eyes (88%) achieved equal or increased visual acuity. The prophylactic vitrectomy group achieved better vision trends than the routine treatment group (P<0.05). Eyes with peripheral necrosis had better visual outcomes than those with mid-peripheral (P<0.05) or extensive (P<0.05) necrosis. However, there was no significant difference between eyes with mid-peripheral and extensive necrosis (P=0.3008) CONCLUSION: Prophylactic vitrectomy can prevent RD and improve the prognosis of ARN, making it an option for cases with rapidly progressing necrosis despite antiviral treatment and cases with moderate to extensive necrosis and severe vitreous opacity.
AIM: To compare the efficacy of prophylactic vitrectomy for acute retinal necrosis syndrome(ARN) with routine treatment in Chinese patients, thereby investigate the necessity of prophylactic vitrectomy for ARN. METHODS: Thirty patients (37 eyes) were retrospectively included in this study. The eyes were divided into 2 groups by treatment, including routine treatment, which consisted of antiviral medication and vitrectomy after retinal detachment (RD) (n=21), and prophylactic vitrectomy, which consisted of antiviral medication and vitrectomy for the prevention of RD performed during the active inflammatory phase (n=16). The extent of necrosis was determined by fundus photographs at the time of presentation (for eyes with mild vitreous opacity) or the drawings in the operation records. Necrosis of the 37 eyes was divided into 3 grades, including peripheral, middle-peripheral and extensive. The follow-up period ranged from 8 to 57 months. Differences in visual acuity and necrosis between groups were identified using independent samples t-test. RESULTS:Necrosis was more extensive in the routine treatment group than in the prophylactic vitrectomy group (P<0.05). In the routine treatment group, conservative treatment improved necrosis and prevented RD in 6 eyes (29%). Seven eyes (33%) obtained anatomical success, but retinal redetachment occurred in 8 eyes (57%). There were also 5 eyes (24%) developed ocular hypotony or atrophy. Ten eyes (48%) achieved equal or increased visual acuity. In the prophylactic vitrectomy group, RD occurred in 2 eyes (13%). Twelve eyes (75%) were completely anatomically successful, and 10 eyes underwent silicone oil removal. Only one eye (6%) became ocular hypotony. Fourteen eyes (88%) achieved equal or increased visual acuity. The prophylactic vitrectomy group achieved better vision trends than the routine treatment group (P<0.05). Eyes with peripheral necrosis had better visual outcomes than those with mid-peripheral (P<0.05) or extensive (P<0.05) necrosis. However, there was no significant difference between eyes with mid-peripheral and extensive necrosis (P=0.3008) CONCLUSION: Prophylactic vitrectomy can prevent RD and improve the prognosis of ARN, making it an option for cases with rapidly progressing necrosis despite antiviral treatment and cases with moderate to extensive necrosis and severe vitreous opacity.