Literature DB >> 34762741

Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments.

Dayse F Sena1, Raphael Kilian2, Su-Hsun Liu3, Stanislao Rizzo4, Gianni Virgili5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane. MAIN
RESULTS: In this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy.  Of the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias.  We found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). All three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence). No study reported data on quality of life or economic measures. Postoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: The current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.
Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34762741      PMCID: PMC8585516          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  37 in total

Review 1.  Visual recovery after retinal detachment.

Authors:  W H Ross; F A Stockl
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.761

2.  Pneumatic retinopexy. A two-year follow-up study of the multicenter clinical trial comparing pneumatic retinopexy with scleral buckling.

Authors:  P E Tornambe; G F Hilton; D A Brinton; T P Flood; S Green; W S Grizzard; M E Hammer; S R Leff; L Masciulli; C M Morgan
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 3.  The epidemiology of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: geographical variation and clinical associations.

Authors:  D Mitry; D G Charteris; B W Fleck; H Campbell; J Singh
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 4.  Cataract in the Adult Eye Preferred Practice Pattern®.

Authors:  Randall J Olson; Rosa Braga-Mele; Sherleen Huang Chen; Kevin M Miller; Roberto Pineda; James P Tweeten; David C Musch
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 12.079

5.  [Comparison between 2 methods of treatment of retinal detachment. (Advantages of H.A. Lincoff's method].

Authors:  M Massin; A Dubois-Poulsen; F Damois
Journal:  Arch Ophtalmol Rev Gen Ophtalmol       Date:  1971-11

6.  The Swedish Retinal Detachment Register. I. A database for epidemiological and clinical studies.

Authors:  P V Algvere; P Jahnberg; O Textorius
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  What happens to untreated asymptomatic retinal breaks, and are they affected by posterior vitreous detachment?

Authors:  N E Byer
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Evolving trends in primary retinal detachment repair: microincisional vitrectomy and the role of OCT.

Authors:  Patrick D Williams; Seenu M Hariprasad
Journal:  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.300

9.  The incidence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment is increasing.

Authors:  Birgitte Romme Nielsen; Mark Alberti; Søren Solborg Bjerrum; Morten la Cour
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 3.761

10.  [Scleral Buckling Surgery in Germany for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Spirit of the Past or Current Practice?]

Authors:  Felicitas Bucher; Moritz Claudius Daniel; Daniel Böhringer; Clemens Lange; Thomas Reinhard; Hansjürgen Agostini; Stefan J Lang
Journal:  Klin Monbl Augenheilkd       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 0.700

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Scleral Buckling: A Look at the Past, Present and Future in View of Recent Findings on the Importance of Photoreceptor Re-Alignment Following Retinal Re-Attachment.

Authors:  Miguel Cruz-Pimentel; Chyong Yng Huang; Lihteh Wu
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-06-16
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.