3.8 Article

Four Cases of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment That Recurred More than 10 Years after Initial Reattachment by Pars Plana Vitrectomy

Journal

CASE REPORTS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 219-226

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000511372

Keywords

Late recurrence; Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; Vitrectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reported 4 cases of recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachment 10-17 years after primary reattachment surgery by pars plana vitrectomy. The new retinal breaks were punched-out shaped without horseshoe tears or atrophic holes, and all cases achieved reattachment with combined vitrectomy and scleral buckling surgery. Best-corrected visual acuity ranged from 20/30 to 20/25 among patients.
Purpose: The purpose of this report was to present our findings in 4 cases of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) that recurred 10, 11, 12, and 17 years after a reattachment surgery by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). Methods: Four cases of a recurrent RRD had undergone scleral buckling surgery and vitrectomy. Patients: The recurrence of the RRD was observed 10-17 years after the successful attachment by PPV. The macula was detached in all cases, and none of the eyes had severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The cause of the recurrence was a new retinal break in 3 eyes and a reopening of an old retinal break in the other eye. The new breaks had a punched-out shape and had neither a horseshoe tear nor an atrophic hole associated with lattice degeneration. PPV combined with scleral buckling was performed, and a reattachment was achieved in all cases. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the last visit ranged from 20/30 to 20/25, but the BCVA in 1 eye was 20/200 because of amblyopia. Conclusions: We experienced 4 rare cases of a recurrent retinal detachment 10-17 years after the primary RRD. PPV and scleral buckling were effective and the anatomical and the functional outcomes were good.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available