SF6 COMPARED WITH C2F6 FOR INFERIOR RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL REPAIR

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To compare SF 6 relative with C 2 F 6 in the anatomical and functional outcomes following pars plana vitrectomy for uncomplicated primary pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior causative breaks. METHODS: This is a retrospective, comparative study on eyes with pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior causative breaks that had small-gauge pars plana vitrectomy repair using SF 6 and C 2 F 6 tamponade between 2011 and 2020 at a tertiary centre in the United Kingdom. Primary outcome was single surgery anatomical success, and the secondary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity. Propensity score matching, using preoperative findings as covariates to account for relevant confounders, was performed. RESULTS: From 162 pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment eyes with inferior causative breaks, the median (interquartile range) follow-up was 82 (52-182) days. The single surgery anatomical success was 156 (96.3%) overall: 47 of 47 (100.0%) and 109 of 115 (94.8%) in the SF 6 and C 2 F 6 groups, respectively ( P = 0.182). Relative to the SF 6 group, the C 2 F 6 group had a higher mean number of tears (SF 6 : 3.1[2.0], C 2 F 6 : 4.5[2.7], P = 0.002) and greater retinal detachment extent (SF 6 : 5.3[2.9], C 2 F 6 : 6.2[2.6] clock hours, P = 0.025). Following propensity score matching analysis, 80 eyes were matched with 40 in each group to homogenize preoperative factors. No significant difference was found in single surgery anatomical success and best-corrected visual acuity between the groups following propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: Primary pars plana vitrectomy with gas tamponade leads to a high single surgery anatomical success rate in uncomplicated pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior causative breaks with no additional benefit associated with long-acting tamponade when comparing C 2 F 6 with SF 6 .

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.