Sara Risseeuw1, Joke H de Boer1, Ninette H Ten Dam-van Loon1, Redmer van Leeuwen2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.vanleeuwen@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study whether preventive laser or preventive vitrectomy is able to lower the risk of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in patients with acute retinal necrosis (ARN). DESIGN: A retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 59 patients (63 eyes) with ARN treated in a single tertiary referral center. We analyzed different groups with either no prophylaxis, prophylactic laser, or prophylactic vitrectomy. Main outcome measure was incidence of RRD. RESULTS: Overall incidence of RRD was 44.4%, including 13% at presentation. In a crude analysis, the risk of RRD was highest in 33 patients with prophylactic laser (45.5%), lower in 15 patients with no prophylaxis (26.7%), and lowest in 7 patients with prophylactic vitrectomy (14.3%). Baseline best-corrected visual acuity differed between these groups, but zone and percentage of involved retina did not. In a multivariable model including prophylactic laser and ARN severity, only zone was predictive of RRD. CONCLUSION: When correcting for severity of disease, we did not observe a reduction in the risk of RRD by prophylactic laser in eyes with ARN. Therefore, prophylactic laser may be abandoned. The role of prophylactic vitrectomy is still unclear, but deserves further investigation.
PURPOSE: To study whether preventive laser or preventive vitrectomy is able to lower the risk of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in patients with acute retinal necrosis (ARN). DESIGN: A retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 59 patients (63 eyes) with ARN treated in a single tertiary referral center. We analyzed different groups with either no prophylaxis, prophylactic laser, or prophylactic vitrectomy. Main outcome measure was incidence of RRD. RESULTS: Overall incidence of RRD was 44.4%, including 13% at presentation. In a crude analysis, the risk of RRD was highest in 33 patients with prophylactic laser (45.5%), lower in 15 patients with no prophylaxis (26.7%), and lowest in 7 patients with prophylactic vitrectomy (14.3%). Baseline best-corrected visual acuity differed between these groups, but zone and percentage of involved retina did not. In a multivariable model including prophylactic laser and ARN severity, only zone was predictive of RRD. CONCLUSION: When correcting for severity of disease, we did not observe a reduction in the risk of RRD by prophylactic laser in eyes with ARN. Therefore, prophylactic laser may be abandoned. The role of prophylactic vitrectomy is still unclear, but deserves further investigation.