Posterior Retinotomy vs Perfluorocarbon Liquid to Aid Drainage of Subretinal Fluid During Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair (PRO Study Report No. 10)

Purpose: This work compares posterior retinotomy vs perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) for subretinal fluid (SRF) drainage during pars plana vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods: In this large, multicenter, retrospective comparative study, 2620 patients underwent pars p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vitreoretinal diseases (Print) 2020-11, Vol.4 (6), p.494-498
Hauptverfasser: Vo, Loi V., Ryan, Edwin H., Ryan, Claire M., Shah, Gaurav K., Gupta, Omesh P., Capone, Antonio, Eliott, Dean, Yonekawa, Yoshihiro, Bhavsar, Abdhish R., Emerson, M. Vaughn, Jones, Jacob M., Emerson, Geoffrey G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: This work compares posterior retinotomy vs perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) for subretinal fluid (SRF) drainage during pars plana vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods: In this large, multicenter, retrospective comparative study, 2620 patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy (with or without scleral buckle) for uncomplicated RRD. Patients for whom SRF was drained via the primary break without retinotomy or PFCL were excluded; those who required both retinotomy and PFCL were similarly excluded. Remaining patients were separated into “retinotomy” and “PFCL” cohorts. Subgroup analysis was conducted for macula-on and macula-off subgroups. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 760 eyes (82.7%) had retinotomy and 159 eyes (17.3%) had PFCL for drainage of SRF, and baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were similar. Postoperative analysis showed similar outcomes between the retinotomy and PFCL cohorts, including final visual acuity (P = .19), redetachment rate (P = .30), anatomic success (P = .28), presence of postoperative epiretinal membrane (P = .75), and other macular pathologies (P > .99). Subgroup analysis yielded similar outcomes for macula-on and macula-off subgroups. Postoperative presence of retained PFCL was 2.4%, possibly a factor in the slightly higher number of subsequent surgical procedures (P = .03) in the PFCL cohort. Conclusions: Postoperative outcomes for retinotomy vs PFCL during RRD repair are comparable, aside from slightly greater number of subsequent surgical procedures needed in the PFCL cohort. Our analysis suggests both techniques are reasonable tools in the repair of macula-on or macula-off RRD.
ISSN:2474-1264
2474-1272
DOI:10.1177/2474126420941372