Review and analysis of history and utilization of pneumatic retinopexy after pneumatic retinopexy versus vitrectomy for the management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment outcomes randomized trial (PIVOT)
Résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We describe the history and series results of pneumatic retinopexy (PnR)and provide an analysis of PnR utilization after publication of results of pneumatic retinopexy versus vitrectomy for the management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment outcomes randomized trial (PIVOT). RECENT FINDINGS: No significant trends were found for average number of services ( P = 0.153) of PnR after the publication of PIVOT results. SUMMARY: PnR is a rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair technique that was first described in the early 1900 s and has evolved over time to become a modern-day, minimally invasive, underutilized treatment option. Other repair techniques for RRD include scleral buckling and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), which has been compared to the use of PnR in PIVOT. Results of PIVOT concluded that PnR offered superior visual acuity and noninferiority. PnR is underutilized in the United States even after publication of results of PIVOT deemed it a noninferior treatment. Lack of a significant increase in national utilization of PnR could be associated with multifactorial clinician, systems, and financial reasons in the real-world setting.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Review and analysis of history and utilization of pneumatic retinopexy after pneumatic retinopexy versus vitrectomy for the management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment outcomes randomized trial (PIVOT)
- Date Crossref
- 15/02/2024
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.