Cargando…
Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study
PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical outcomes of traditional scleral buckling (TSB) compared to chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective interventional comparative case series of 49 eyes that underwent SB procedure. M...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6371939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30804661 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S182751 |
_version_ | 1783394656860504064 |
---|---|
author | Cohen, Eyal Rosenblatt, Amir Bornstein, Sandy Loewenstein, Anat Barak, Adiel Schwartz, Shulamit |
author_facet | Cohen, Eyal Rosenblatt, Amir Bornstein, Sandy Loewenstein, Anat Barak, Adiel Schwartz, Shulamit |
author_sort | Cohen, Eyal |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical outcomes of traditional scleral buckling (TSB) compared to chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective interventional comparative case series of 49 eyes that underwent SB procedure. Medical records of 27 and 22 eyes that underwent TSB and CSB surgery, respectively, were evaluated. Outcome measures included primary anatomical success, visual acuity (VA), and perioperative complications. RESULTS: Primary reattachment rate was similar with 85.2% in the TCB group and 81.8% in the CSB group (P=1.00); eight patients needed one additional operation or gas injection with a final reattachment rate of 100% at 6 months. Mean VA in the CSB group improved from 20/60 at presentation to 20/35, 6 months postoperatively. In the TSB group, VA improved from 20/80 to 20/45 (P=0.90). Among the eyes that were successfully reattached with either SB approach, two eyes in each group had cataract progression and none of them required surgery during follow-up. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed. CONCLUSION: CSB is a modified technique with an advantage of superior visualization compared with the traditional surgery, which simplifies the operation, enhance competency, and could be used as a valuable educational tool. It can provide similar anatomical and functional outcomes with no additional perioperative complications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6371939 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63719392019-02-25 Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study Cohen, Eyal Rosenblatt, Amir Bornstein, Sandy Loewenstein, Anat Barak, Adiel Schwartz, Shulamit Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical outcomes of traditional scleral buckling (TSB) compared to chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective interventional comparative case series of 49 eyes that underwent SB procedure. Medical records of 27 and 22 eyes that underwent TSB and CSB surgery, respectively, were evaluated. Outcome measures included primary anatomical success, visual acuity (VA), and perioperative complications. RESULTS: Primary reattachment rate was similar with 85.2% in the TCB group and 81.8% in the CSB group (P=1.00); eight patients needed one additional operation or gas injection with a final reattachment rate of 100% at 6 months. Mean VA in the CSB group improved from 20/60 at presentation to 20/35, 6 months postoperatively. In the TSB group, VA improved from 20/80 to 20/45 (P=0.90). Among the eyes that were successfully reattached with either SB approach, two eyes in each group had cataract progression and none of them required surgery during follow-up. No cases of endophthalmitis were observed. CONCLUSION: CSB is a modified technique with an advantage of superior visualization compared with the traditional surgery, which simplifies the operation, enhance competency, and could be used as a valuable educational tool. It can provide similar anatomical and functional outcomes with no additional perioperative complications. Dove Medical Press 2019-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6371939/ /pubmed/30804661 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S182751 Text en © 2019 Cohen et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Cohen, Eyal Rosenblatt, Amir Bornstein, Sandy Loewenstein, Anat Barak, Adiel Schwartz, Shulamit Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title | Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title_full | Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title_fullStr | Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title_short | Wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
title_sort | wide-angled endoillumination vs traditional scleral buckling surgery for retinal detachment – a comparative study |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6371939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30804661 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S182751 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT coheneyal wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy AT rosenblattamir wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy AT bornsteinsandy wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy AT loewensteinanat wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy AT barakadiel wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy AT schwartzshulamit wideangledendoilluminationvstraditionalscleralbucklingsurgeryforretinaldetachmentacomparativestudy |