Pneumatic retinopexy: success rate and complications

Abstract

In this case series, pneumatic retinopexy was less effective for the repair of RRD than most large published reports. However, failure of pneumatic retinopexy followed by scleral buckle or pars plana vitrectomy did not negatively influence visual acuity at final follow up.

Preoperative B-scan ultrasonography of the vitreoretinal interface in phakic patients undergoing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair and its prognostic significance

“…Therefore, PVD status at baseline may assist in the decision-making process of the surgical procedure in the setting of phakic primary RDs. These study results may help to understand the wide range of primary anatomic success rates for pneumatic retinopexy in the available literature, which range from 58% [6] up to 84% [12] for phakic RD. Our overall primary success rate for pneumatic retinopexy (without 360°p rophylactic peripheral laser) [8] was 62%, and around 90% if only eyes with complete PVD at baseline were considered.…”

“…More recently, several studies have demonstrated the relationship between different types of retinal breaks and posterior vitreous detachment (PVD), as well as the different prognoses associated with phakic and pseudophakic RD [2][3][4][5]. Despite all the knowledge accumulated over the years and a final anatomic success rate approaching 95-100% [6,7], there is a need to improve the rate of first operation anatomic success in order to improve visual acuity outcome and patient satisfaction while decreasing costs associated with additional interventions.…”

Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Reappraisal of Its Pathophysiology and Treatment

“…In properly selected cases, pneumatic retinopexy is a rather effective option, and it does not appear to reduce the success of secondary surgery in the relatively high proportion of secondary failures [60]. SB is a highly successful operation, and this article does not argue against this treatment either.…”

V.B.7. Pneumatic Retinopexy

“…Long-term effi cacy of PR has been proven to be as high as 98.7 % up to 6.4 years postoperatively and to be even better than SB after 2 years with less cataract incidence, better visual outcome, and faster recovery [ 104 , 105 ]. Final anatomic success after subsequent therapy following failed primary PR has been reported to be as high as 100 % [ 9 , 10 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 71 , 73 , 86 , 89 -91 , 106 ], and repeat operation by PR, PPV, or SB does not negatively impact visual acuity at fi nal follow-up [ 107 ].…”