4.4 Article

Pneumatic Retinopexy for the Repair of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis

Journal

JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages 166-171

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/2013.jamaophthalmol.361

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the outcome and risk factors for failure of pneumatic retinopexy (PR) in eyes with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods: Data of patients who underwent PR for the repair of primary RRD, from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2011, were retrieved from medical records and retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a follow-up time of less than 4 months were contacted and invited for examination. Patients with less than 2 months of follow-up were excluded. Successful cases (attached retina at 2 months after the PR) were compared with failures. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing successful and failed cases of RRD that were reattached with only 1 additional operation. Results: Two hundred seventy-six eyes (271 patients) underwent PR during the study period, of which 258 eyes (93.5%) were included in the study. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 36.1 (39.4) months; only 23 eyes (8.9%) had a follow-up of less than 4 months. Successful reattachment at 2 months was achieved in 171 eyes (66.3%). Sixty-seven eyes (77.0% of the failed cases) were reattached with only 1 additional operation and final anatomical success was achieved in 256 eyes (99.2%). Successful cases had significantly better final vision (P = .002) and fewer postoperative complications (P <= .026). However, nonsignificant differences were found between the primary failure PR cases that underwent only 1 additional operation and the successful cases (P >= .073). Conclusions: Pneumatic retinopexy is a good surgical option for primary RRD. Most cases of primary failure are reattached with 1 additional procedure and have excellent final vision. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(2):166-171

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available