4.6 Review

Retinal detachment following cataract phacoemulsification-a review of the literature

Journal

EYE
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 616-631

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0575-z

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A link between cataract surgery and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) has long been considered. Indeed, pseudophakic retinal detachment (PPRD) forms a substantial and increasing proportion of RRD. We reviewed the literature to answer the following questions: what is the incidence of PPRD in eyes following phacoemulsification cataract surgery and how does its risk change over time following surgery? We also sought to assess how the risk is modified by intraoperative factors (operative complications, surgeon grade, subsequent laser capsulotomy), intrinsic eye-related factors (laterality, myopia, previous RRD, previous trauma, previous PVD) and patient factors (sex, age, ethnicity, affluence, systemic comorbidities). Secondarily we asked how the incidence of PPRD after phacoemulsification compares with the RRD incidence in the general population and how identified risk factors contribute to the pathophysiology of PPRD. A search of the Medline and Ovid databases was conducted for relevant publications from 1990 onwards using defined search terms with pre planned inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 10-year PPRD incidence after phacoemulsification was identified as being between 0.36 and 2.9%. This decreases over time to 0.1-0.2% annually but remains above the general population. The PPRD risk is further elevated by (in order of decreasing effect) intraoperative vitreous loss, increasing axial length, younger age, male sex and trainee operating surgeons. The PPRD risk after phacoemulsification is approximately ten times the general population's RRD risk. This risk is modified by the interplay of a hierarchy of risk factors, of which intraoperative vitreous loss, myopia, age and sex have the biggest effect.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available