Literature DB >> 23953099

Expanded criteria for pneumatic retinopexy and potential cost savings.

Darin R Goldman1, Chirag P Shah2, Jeffrey S Heier3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To provide insight into the preoperative factors that affect outcome after pneumatic retinopexy (PR) for treatment of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. Additionally, we sought to analyze the cost of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair in the United States to determine potential cost savings with pneumatic retinopexy.
DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective, observational consecutive case series and third party payer-perspective comparative cost analysis. PARTICIPANTS: We included 141 eyes undergoing pneumatic retinopexy for the treatment of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
METHODS: Preoperative characteristics, anatomic outcomes, and best-available visual acuity were collected. Anatomic and visual outcomes were analyzed based on the presence of selected preoperative factors. The primary cohort was divided into 2 groups based on preoperative characteristics: (1) traditional pneumatic retinopexy and (2) nontraditional pneumatic retinopexy. Comparative cost analyses were performed between pneumatic retinopexy, scleral buckling, and vitrectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anatomic and visual outcomes at 6 months.
RESULTS: Overall anatomic success was 78.7% and visual acuity improved significantly (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] 0.48-0.25; P <0.005). A 97.6% final anatomic success rate was achieved. Anatomic outcomes were similar between traditional versus nontraditional (84.1% vs 74.4%; P = 0.16), phakic versus pseudophakic (79.1% vs 78.0%; P = 0.88), and macula-on versus macula-off (77.9% vs 81.1%; P = 0.68) groups. Anatomic failure was predicted by the presence of an inferior retinal break (P <0.005) or visible vitreous traction on a retinal break (P = 0.04). Visual outcomes were similar between each of the traditional versus nontraditional (logMAR 0.21 vs 0.27; P >0.05) and phakic versus pseudophakic groups (logMAR 0.23 vs 0.28; P >0.05). Visual outcomes were better in macula-on detachments compared with those in which the macula was detached (logMAR 0.18 vs 0.42; P <0.005). Annual health care cost savings in the United States ranging from $6 to $30 million are theoretically possible by increasing pneumatic retinopexy utilization from the current rate of 15% to 20%-35%.
CONCLUSIONS: Pneumatic retinopexy is an effective treatment modality for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Anatomic and visual outcomes are similar for traditional and nontraditional preoperative inclusion criteria, as well as phakic and pseudophakic eyes. Inferior breaks and visible vitreous traction on a tear predicted failure. Increased utilization of pneumatic retinopexy would achieve significant cost savings while maintaining outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23953099     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.06.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  15 in total

1.  Pneumatic Retinopexy Experience and Outcomes of Vitreoretinal Fellows in the United States: A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Parisa Emami-Naeini; Jordan Deaner; Ferhina Ali; Priyanka Gogte; Richard Kaplan; Kevin C Chen; Eric Nudleman; Dilraj S Grewal; Meenakashi Gupta; Jeremy D Wolfe; Michael Klufas; Glenn Yiu
Journal:  Ophthalmol Retina       Date:  2018-09-20

2.  Cost-effectiveness of retinal detachment repair.

Authors:  Jonathan S Chang; William E Smiddy
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 3.  Pneumatic retinopexy: an update.

Authors:  Chyong-Yng Huang; Mia Mikowski; Lihteh Wu
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Anatomic, Visual, and Financial Outcomes for Traditional and Nontraditional Primary Pneumatic Retinopexy for Retinal Detachment.

Authors:  Jesse J Jung; John Cheng; Jane Y Pan; Daniel A Brinton; Quan V Hoang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Retinal Tamponades: Current Uses and Future Technologies.

Authors:  Avnish Deobhakta; Richard Rosen
Journal:  Curr Ophthalmol Rep       Date:  2020-07-04

Review 6.  A Review of Innovations in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Surgical Techniques.

Authors:  Achia Nemet; Ala Moshiri; Glenn Yiu; Anat Loewenstein; Elad Moisseiev
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-05-07       Impact factor: 1.909

7.  A quality of life study comparing scleral buckle and pneumatic retinopexy for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

Authors:  Angela C Gauthier; Ron A Adelman
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-06

8.  Reassessment of pneumatic retinopexy for primary treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

Authors:  Eyal Cohen; Amir Zerach; Michael Mimouni; Adiel Barak
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-11-02

9.  Pneumatic retinopexy: A cost-effective alternative.

Authors:  Ritesh Narula
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 10.  Pneumatic retinopexy: patient selection and specific factors.

Authors:  Stephen Stewart; Wing Chan
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.