4.4 Article

CHARACTERISTICS OF RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUCCESS RATES OF SURGERY

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000094

关键词

rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; retinal break; pseudophakia

资金

  1. Eyehope (UK registered charity) [1119866]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine features of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment predictive of anatomical success with surgical procedure. Methods: All patients undergoing surgery at a tertiary referral practice had contemporaneous data collection in an electronic database. Overall, 847 eyes from 847 patients undergoing surgical procedure for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment were included in this study. Results: Mean age was 62.2 years with 60% male subjects and 56% right eyes. Mean postoperative follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 6 weeks to 10 years). With univariate analysis, the presence of superotemporal breaks was associated with a reduction in the chance of failed primary surgery (P = 0.005); detached inferonasal breaks (P = 0.002), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) (P < 0.0001), breaks in detached inferior retina (P < 0.0001), fovea off (P = 0.001), and 4-quadrant rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (P < 0.0001) increased the risk of failure. After multivariate analysis PVR, detached inferior breaks, increased number of breaks, and 4-quadrant detachment remained associated with an increased risk of failure, and superotemporal detached breaks with the reduced risk of failure (r(2) = 0.08). For patients without PVR, only inferonasal detached breaks and 3 to 4 quadrants of detachment remained predictive of failure (r(2) = 0.04). For patients with PVR (n = 120), multivariate analysis showed that PVR C4-12 and posterior breaks increased the failure risk and detached superotemporal breaks reduced the risk of failure (r(2) = 0.22). Conclusion: Number of breaks, inferior positioning of breaks, the extent of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, and PVR are associated with failed primary surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据