We have located links that may give you full text access.
The impact of 360-laser barricade on outcomes of vitrectomy for pseudophakic retinal detachment; The Manchester Pseudophakic Retinal Detachment Study.
Eye 2023 March 23
PURPOSE: To investigate the anatomical and functional outcomes and specifically, the effect of 360-degree barrier-laser, in pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for primary pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (PRD).
METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective, continuous and comparative study on eyes that had undergone PPV with focal-retinopexy (laser or cryotherapy) versus 360-laser for PRD repair between 2011-2020 at a single tertiary vitreoretinal centre in the UK. Primary outcomes were single surgery anatomical success (SSAS) rate and final postoperative visual acuity (VA). Multivariable regression covariates for primary re-detachment included age, gender, onset-of-detachment, pre-operative VA, ocular co-morbidities, macula-status, majority inferior (vs superior) PRD, number-of-tears and PRD extent (in clock-hours), 360-laser barricade, and perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) use. For VA gain, primary re-detachment was added as a covariate.
RESULTS: We included 467 eyes with a mean follow-up of 388 (161) days. The SSAS was 444/467 (95.1%) overall, and 351/370 (94.9%) and 93/97 (95.9%) in focal-retinopexy and 360-laser groups, respectively (p = 0.798). Compared to the focal-retinopexy group, the 360-laser group had significantly worse post-operative VA but similar logMAR gain (p = 0.812). A multivariable binary logistic regression found that only PFCL use was linked with increased primary re-detachment (OR:5.32 [p = 0.048]) and 360-laser did not contribute to increased SSAS. A multivariable linear regression analysis showed that poor logMAR gain was significantly associated with better pre-operative logMAR, ocular co-morbidities, greater PRD extent, use of 360-laser and primary re-detachment. However, when excluding macula-off RD (n = 211), 360-laser was no longer significant (p = 0.088).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic 360-laser does not seem to impact on SSAS and functional outcomes following PPV for primary PRD.
METHODS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective, continuous and comparative study on eyes that had undergone PPV with focal-retinopexy (laser or cryotherapy) versus 360-laser for PRD repair between 2011-2020 at a single tertiary vitreoretinal centre in the UK. Primary outcomes were single surgery anatomical success (SSAS) rate and final postoperative visual acuity (VA). Multivariable regression covariates for primary re-detachment included age, gender, onset-of-detachment, pre-operative VA, ocular co-morbidities, macula-status, majority inferior (vs superior) PRD, number-of-tears and PRD extent (in clock-hours), 360-laser barricade, and perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) use. For VA gain, primary re-detachment was added as a covariate.
RESULTS: We included 467 eyes with a mean follow-up of 388 (161) days. The SSAS was 444/467 (95.1%) overall, and 351/370 (94.9%) and 93/97 (95.9%) in focal-retinopexy and 360-laser groups, respectively (p = 0.798). Compared to the focal-retinopexy group, the 360-laser group had significantly worse post-operative VA but similar logMAR gain (p = 0.812). A multivariable binary logistic regression found that only PFCL use was linked with increased primary re-detachment (OR:5.32 [p = 0.048]) and 360-laser did not contribute to increased SSAS. A multivariable linear regression analysis showed that poor logMAR gain was significantly associated with better pre-operative logMAR, ocular co-morbidities, greater PRD extent, use of 360-laser and primary re-detachment. However, when excluding macula-off RD (n = 211), 360-laser was no longer significant (p = 0.088).
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic 360-laser does not seem to impact on SSAS and functional outcomes following PPV for primary PRD.
Full text links
Related Resources
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 
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