COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Primary vitrectomy versus conventional retinal detachment surgery in phakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the results of primary vitrectomy and conventional scleral buckling procedures (conventional retinal detachment surgery) in phakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).

METHODS: We carried out a randomized, prospective, clinical controlled trial of 61 consecutive phakic eyes with primary RRD, not complicated by proliferative vitreoretinopathy >or= grade C. Subjects were randomized to either scleral buckling (group 1) or pars plana vitrectomy (group 2).

RESULTS: At 6 months follow-up, the primary reattachment rate was 80% (24/30 cases) in group 2 and 80.6% (25/31 cases) in group 1; the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.213). Best corrected visual acuity improved significantly from a preoperative median of 1.78 (1/60) (mean 1.73 +/- 0.91, range 0.3-3) to a median of 0.6 (6/24) (mean 0.689 +/- 0.35, range 0.18-1.48) in group 2 and from a preoperative median of 1.48 (2/60) (mean 1.43 +/- 0.92, range 0-3) to a median of 0.6 (6/24) (mean 0.608 +/- 0.36, range 0-1.78) in group 1; the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.376). Cataract developed in five cases (17%) in the vitrectomy group (group 2), with a statistically significant difference of p = 0.018.

CONCLUSIONS: Although primary vitrectomy can achieve anatomical and functional success rates comparable with those achieved by scleral buckling in uncomplicated forms of phakic RRD, the major drawback of the procedure is the high incidence of postoperative cataract formation. Moreover, visual rehabilitation takes place earlier with scleral buckling than with vitrectomy. Scleral buckling should thus be used as the primary surgical modality in the treatment of uncomplicated RRD where the media are sufficiently clear.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app