TY - JOUR
T1 - Pars plana vitrectomy versus combined pars plana vitrectomy-scleral buckle for secondary repair of retinal detachment
AU - Rush, Ryan B.
AU - Simunovic, Matthew P.
AU - Sheth, Saumil
AU - Kratz, Assaf
AU - Hunyor, Alex P.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal technique for repairing recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-year retrospective review of recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachments by 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or combined 23-gauge PPV with encircling scleral buckling was performed. The primary outcome was anatomical success. The secondary outcome was the likelihood of achieving a final best corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or better at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Anatomical success was achieved in 65.2% (95% CI, 53.4% to 75.4%) of the PPV group versus 74.3% (95% CI, 57.9% to 85.8%) of the PPV-scleral buckling group with one additional procedure (not statistically significant). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of achieving a final acuity of at least 6/12 between groups at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results of our study do not demonstrate a superiority of method of primary repair, or of one method of secondary repair, over another.
AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal technique for repairing recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-year retrospective review of recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachments by 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or combined 23-gauge PPV with encircling scleral buckling was performed. The primary outcome was anatomical success. The secondary outcome was the likelihood of achieving a final best corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or better at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Anatomical success was achieved in 65.2% (95% CI, 53.4% to 75.4%) of the PPV group versus 74.3% (95% CI, 57.9% to 85.8%) of the PPV-scleral buckling group with one additional procedure (not statistically significant). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of achieving a final acuity of at least 6/12 between groups at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results of our study do not demonstrate a superiority of method of primary repair, or of one method of secondary repair, over another.
U2 - 10.3928/23258160-20130604-02
DO - 10.3928/23258160-20130604-02
M3 - Article
C2 - 23758323
SN - 1542-8877
VL - 44
SP - 374
EP - 379
JO - Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina
JF - Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina
IS - 4
ER -