INFERIOR RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR USING VITRECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT SCLERAL BUCKLING.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes in inferior rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for inferior RRD at a tertiary care center between 2014 and 2018 were included. Inferior RRD was defined as RD with tears between 4:00 and 8:00 clock hours in a detached retina. Non-RRD etiologies (e.g., traumatic, tractional), proliferative vitreoretinopathy grade ≥C2, and silicone oil use were excluded. Single-surgery anatomic success was defined as the absence of reoperation for recurrent RRD during follow-up. RESULTS: There were 366 patients included of which 260 (71%) were operated using PPV-SB. Single-surgery anatomic success was achieved in 96 (91%) of patients with pars plana vitrectomy and 227 (87%) of patients with PPV-SB ( P = 0.38) over a median follow-up of 15 months. At the final follow-up, pinhole visual acuity was 0.18 (0.10-0.30) among patients with pars plana vitrectomy and 0.18 (0.10-0.40) among patients with PPV-SB (Snellen equivalent: 20/30; P = 0.03). After adjusting for demographic (i.e., age and sex) and preoperative characteristics (i.e., macula on status, baseline pinhole visual acuity, and grade C1 proliferative vitreoretinopathy), PPV-SB did not alter single-surgery anatomic success ( P = 0.210). CONCLUSION: Following inferior RRD repair, there were no significant differences in single-surgery anatomic success between patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy and PPV-SB in this large, retrospective cohort.

Anatomical and functional outcomes of retinal detachment associated with nontraumatic giant retinal tears compared to simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

BACKGROUND: To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of primary surgery in patients with giant retinal tear (GRT)-associated retinal detachment (GRT-RD) to patients with simple rhegmatogenous RD (RRD). METHODS: This is a retrospective study at the CHU de Québec - Université Laval. Medical records of all consecutive patients operated for RD between 2014 and 2018 were reviewed. Patients with GRT-RD and RRD were included. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared between both groups, including extension of giant tears, number of RD quadrants, preoperative macula and lens status, type of surgery, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) preoperatively and at follow-up, and single surgery anatomical success (SASS). RESULTS: There were 39 patients (1.7%) with GRT-RD and 1661 patients (74%) with RRD. Median [Q1, Q3] ages were 59 [52, 62] years and 62 [56, 69] years (p = 0.003), while number of affected quadrants were 2 [2, 3] and 2 [2, 3] (p = 0.96) in GRT-RD and RRD patients, respectively. In GRT-RD patients, GRT size was 120 [90, 150] degrees. Final BCVA was 0.30 [0.10, 0.30] and 0.30 [0.10, 0.40] (p = 0.76) in GRT and RRD patients, respectively. SSAS was 82% (32/39) in the GRT-associated-RD group and 90% (1495/1661) in the RRD group (p = 0.10). After correcting for other preoperative factors, GRT was a risk factor for worse SSAS (odds ratio: 0.422, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: GRT-RD is still challenging to treat, and our results suggest that it is a risk factor for poorer SSAS.

OUTCOMES IN PRIMARY UNCOMPLICATED RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR USING PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY WITH OR WITHOUT SCLERAL BUCKLE.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or PPV with scleral buckle (PPV-SB). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with propensity score analysis in a single tertiary care center between 2014 and 2018 comparing patients with primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repaired using PPV only or PPV-SB (full cohort: n = 1,516, propensity-matched cohort: n = 908). The primary outcome was single surgery anatomic success, whereas secondary outcomes were 3-month and final pinhole visual acuity in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution and final retina status. RESULTS: In the full cohort, single surgery anatomic success was achieved in 745 (91%) PPV patients versus 623 (89%) PPV-SB patients (P = 0.13). This was 390 (92%) versus 314 (88%) in phakic patients (P = 0.06) compared with 353 (91%) versus 301 (90%) in pseudophakic patients (P = 0.79), respectively. After matching, single surgery anatomic success was achieved in 424 (93%) PPV patients versus 412 (91%) PPV-SB patients (P = 0.14). Median pinhole visual acuity after PPV was better at 3 months (PPV: 20/40 vs. PPV-SB: 20/50; both cohorts: P < 0.001) and final follow-up (PPV: 20/29 vs. PPV-SB: 20/38; full cohort: P < 0.001 and PPV: 20/29 vs. PPV-SB: 20/36; matched cohort: P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Addition of scleral buckle does not significantly change the rate of single surgery anatomic success compared with PPV only in primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. It is also associated with worse pinhole visual acuity at follow-up.

Outcomes of surgical repair of Retinoschisis-associated retinal detachment compared to Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of primary retinal detachment (RD) repair in retinoschisis-associated RD (RSRD) and rhegmatogenous RD (RRD). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. Charts of 2247 consecutive patients operated for RD repair at the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec - Université Laval between 2014 and 2018 were reviewed. Patients with RSRD and RRD were included to compare the visual and anatomical outcomes of both groups. RESULTS: There were 41 patients (1.8%) with RSRD and 1661 patients (74%) with RRD. RSRD patients had more primary repair failures (n = 9, 22%, vs. n = 166, 10%; p = 0.013). The primary anatomical success rates for pars plana vitrectomy with and without scleral buckle (PPV-SB vs. PPV) as primary repair method were similar in both RSRD patients (n = 11/14, 79% vs. n = 20/25, 80%; p = 0.92) and RRD patients (n = 751/827, 91% vs. n = 641/721, 89%; p = 0.21). At final follow-up, best corrected visual acuity (VA) in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) was 0.30 [0.10, 0.88] and 0.18 [0.10, 0.40] (p = 0.03) in RSRD patients and RRD patients, respectively. Presence of retinoschisis was associated with worse final VA (ß 0.082, p < 0.001). Other predictive variables included female sex, macula-off presentation, number of RD quadrants involved, longer symptoms duration, worse baseline VA, and primary repair failure. The greatest predictors were worse baseline VA, primary repair failure, and macula-off status at presentation. Presence of retinoschisis did not significantly increase risk of primary repair failure in multivariable analysis (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 0.50-4.17; p = 0.49). Symptoms duration was the greatest effect factor associated with for primary repair failure (OR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12-1.69; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: RSRD is associated with more primary repair failure in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis after adjusting for symptoms duration. It is however associated with worse final VA even after adjusting for primary repair failure. Both PPV and PPV-SB are valid repair methods for RSRD. However, RSRD remains a challenge to treat.

Revision Surgery for Idiopathic Macular Hole after Failed Primary Vitrectomy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the anatomical and functional outcomes of revision surgery after failed primary surgery for idiopathic macular hole (MH). METHODS: All consecutive patients with MH were identified from a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2018 at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval (Québec). The clinical and anatomical features of patients with unclosed MH after primary surgery were retrospectively collected. Our primary outcome was MH nonclosure rate after revision surgery. Our secondary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with ETDRS scale and MH size of eyes with revision surgery preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after revision surgery. RESULTS: In our cohort of 1085 eyes, 926 eyes met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in the study. We identified 22 eyes with failed primary surgery (2.4%), of which 20 underwent revision surgery. We had no bilateral MH in these 22 eyes. The nonclosure rate of MH after revision surgery was 15%. The mean final BCVA for closed MH after revision surgery was 55 ± 19 letters. Compared to the initial presentation, the mean change in visual acuity (VA) for closed MH was +4 ± 31 letters and +16 ± 17 letters at 3 and 12 months after the revision surgery, respectively. At initial presentation, patients with failed primary surgery had a baseline MH size of 665 ± 226 µm. The mean MH size after failed primary surgery was 607 ± 162 µm and 546 ± 156 µm for the three unclosed MHs one month after revision surgery. CONCLUSION: The success rate of revision surgery in eyes with unclosed MH is 85%. After successful revision surgery, eyes demonstrated an improvement in VA and closure of the MH.