Background and objective: To compare pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) and scleral buckling (SB) for repair of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Materials and methods: Single-centre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing PnR and SB. Inclusion criteria comprehend phakic patients with a single retinal break or a group of breaks in detached retina in the same quadrant above the 8- and 4-o'clock meridians. A total of 184 patients were included, respectively 106 underwent PnR and 78 SB. Follow-up time was 6 months. Results: Final visual outcome did not differ significantly between the two procedures (P = 0.12). Single-procedure reattachment rate was significantly higher in SB (94%) than in PnR (68%) (P < 0001). Anatomical success rate was not influenced by macular involving. Reattachment rate in repeated PnR was 95% and in these patients visual outcome did not statistically differ compared to those reattached with first attempt (P = 0.196). Total reattachment rate including repeated procedures was 87% in PnR group and 94% in SB group, the difference was not significant (P = 0.06). Conclusion: SB has a higher single reattachment rate than PnR. However, final visual outcomes of both procedures are comparable. In selected cases, PnR can be repeated with a high successful rate.
Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckling for the management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment
Romano, Mario
2022-01-01
Abstract
Background and objective: To compare pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) and scleral buckling (SB) for repair of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Materials and methods: Single-centre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing PnR and SB. Inclusion criteria comprehend phakic patients with a single retinal break or a group of breaks in detached retina in the same quadrant above the 8- and 4-o'clock meridians. A total of 184 patients were included, respectively 106 underwent PnR and 78 SB. Follow-up time was 6 months. Results: Final visual outcome did not differ significantly between the two procedures (P = 0.12). Single-procedure reattachment rate was significantly higher in SB (94%) than in PnR (68%) (P < 0001). Anatomical success rate was not influenced by macular involving. Reattachment rate in repeated PnR was 95% and in these patients visual outcome did not statistically differ compared to those reattached with first attempt (P = 0.196). Total reattachment rate including repeated procedures was 87% in PnR group and 94% in SB group, the difference was not significant (P = 0.06). Conclusion: SB has a higher single reattachment rate than PnR. However, final visual outcomes of both procedures are comparable. In selected cases, PnR can be repeated with a high successful rate.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
