Purpose:
To evaluate the visual and anatomical outcomes of reoperations following failure of pneumatic retinopexy (PR) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair and compare the different surgical techniques used in these cases.
Methods:
The study included 114 eyes of 114 patients who underwent PR for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and required subsequent surgery for its repair. These included repeated PR, scleral buckling, vitrectomy with gas or silicone oil, and vitrectomy with scleral buckling. The groups were compared for rates of retinal reattachment, visual improvement, and the occurrence of recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and any other postoperative complications.
Results:
In 91 (79.8%) eyes, the retina was reattached with one additional procedure. The success rate was significantly lower in eyes treated by repeated PR than by other surgical techniques (33 vs. 76–90%; P < 0.001). Visual acuity after PR failure was not significantly different than that at presentation and had improved significantly after surgery for retinal reattachment (P < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Pneumatic retinopexy failure was not associated with visual acuity loss, and the outcomes in 79.2% of cases that required only one additional surgery are comparable with those achieved with primary surgery. Poor outcomes were associated with eyes that required more than one additional surgery and that suffered complications.
Although there are very few reports on OIS post GAS infection, it may be more common than previously thought and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with orbital inflammation.
A comparison of two new integrated SS-OCT tomography/biometry devices (the Eyestar 900 and Anterion) showed good agreement in biometry measurements and IOL power calculation. Corneal diameter measurements had reduced agreement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.