PURPOSE: To compare pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with PPV combined with scleral buckle (PPV/SB) in the treatment of primary, noncomplex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in an academic setting. METHODS: Retrospective review of 74 consecutive cases that underwent either PPV or PPV/SB for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment at New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College. Fifty-two eyes underwent PPV alone while 22 eyes had PPV combined with SB. All eyes had a minimum of 2 months of follow-up. The main outcome measure was single surgery anatomical success. RESULTS: Patients in the PPV/SB group were less likely to be phakic (P = 0.05) and more likely to have an inferior retinal break (P = 0.001) when compared with the PPV group. Between groups, there was no difference in eyes with peripheral retinal lattice degeneration (P = 0.929), multiple breaks (P = 0.801), breaks seen preoperatively (P = 0.095), or those presenting with the macula off retinal detachment (P = 0.548). The majority of patients in both groups underwent small-gauge surgery (23 G or 25 G) (P = 0.65). Attachment of the retina was obtained in 100% of the patients in both groups at most recent follow-up. Single surgery anatomical success was similar between groups (83% PPV vs. 86% PPV/SB; P = 0.695). Mean best-corrected Snellen visual acuity improved in both groups (P = 0.75), with a final best-corrected Snellen visual acuity of 0.418 logMAR in the PPV group and 0.479 logMAR in the PPV/SB group (P = 0.61). When comparing PPV with PPV/SB, no difference in single surgery anatomical success existed after evaluating eyes with inferior breaks (P = 0.68), pseudophakia (P = 0.75), or when small-gauge surgery was performed (P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: We did not find significant differences in single surgery anatomical success, final anatomical success, or change in visual acuity when comparing PPV with PPV/SB in the repair of primary noncomplex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in an academic setting where vitreoretinal fellows participate in key aspects of all cases.
PURPOSE: To compare pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with PPV combined with scleral buckle (PPV/SB) in the treatment of primary, noncomplex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in an academic setting. METHODS: Retrospective review of 74 consecutive cases that underwent either PPV or PPV/SB for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment at New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College. Fifty-two eyes underwent PPV alone while 22 eyes had PPV combined with SB. All eyes had a minimum of 2 months of follow-up. The main outcome measure was single surgery anatomical success. RESULTS:Patients in the PPV/SB group were less likely to be phakic (P = 0.05) and more likely to have an inferior retinal break (P = 0.001) when compared with the PPV group. Between groups, there was no difference in eyes with peripheral retinal lattice degeneration (P = 0.929), multiple breaks (P = 0.801), breaks seen preoperatively (P = 0.095), or those presenting with the macula off retinal detachment (P = 0.548). The majority of patients in both groups underwent small-gauge surgery (23 G or 25 G) (P = 0.65). Attachment of the retina was obtained in 100% of the patients in both groups at most recent follow-up. Single surgery anatomical success was similar between groups (83% PPV vs. 86% PPV/SB; P = 0.695). Mean best-corrected Snellen visual acuity improved in both groups (P = 0.75), with a final best-corrected Snellen visual acuity of 0.418 logMAR in the PPV group and 0.479 logMAR in the PPV/SB group (P = 0.61). When comparing PPV with PPV/SB, no difference in single surgery anatomical success existed after evaluating eyes with inferior breaks (P = 0.68), pseudophakia (P = 0.75), or when small-gauge surgery was performed (P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: We did not find significant differences in single surgery anatomical success, final anatomical success, or change in visual acuity when comparing PPV with PPV/SB in the repair of primary noncomplex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in an academic setting where vitreoretinal fellows participate in key aspects of all cases.
Authors: George Moussa; Emma Samia-Aly; Soon Wai Ch'ng; Kim Son Lett; Arijit Mitra; Ajai K Tyagi; Ash Sharma; Walter Andreatta Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Luke B Lindsell; Robert A Sisk; Daniel M Miller; Robert E Foster; Michael R Petersen; Christopher D Riemann; Robert K Hutchins Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2016-12-20
Authors: Gian Marco Tosi; Angelo Balestrazzi; Stefano Baiocchi; Antonio Tarantello; Gabriele Cevenini; Davide Marigliani; Francesco Simi Journal: Retina Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.256