Pérez-Aragón BJ, Pérez-Montaño CR, Ramírez-Estudillo JA, Robles-Contreras A, Lima-Gómez V

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 496-500
PDF size: 140.34 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To identify the efficacy and safety of the steam-roller maneuver, in patients treated with pneumatic retinopexy. Method: Experimental, prospective, comparative, longitudinal study in patients with retinal detachment, treated with pneumatic retinopexy. Patients were assigned to one of two groups: without steam roller maneuver (group 1) or with it (group 2). The proportions of single-intervention anatomical success, visual improvement, anatomical success with reintervention, and adverse events were compared between groups (chi squared); preoperative and postoperative visual acuity in logMAR was compared within groups (Wilcoxon’s t). Results: 40 eyes were evaluated (mean age 55.9 ± 13.3 years); 15 were assigned to group 1, 25 to group 2. The proportions of single-intervention anatomical success, visual improvement, anatomical success with reintervention, and adverse events did not differ between groups (p › 0.05). At the end of follow up, visual acuity improved in both groups; however, it only improved in group 2, in eyes with single intervention anatomical success (mean log MAR before surgery 1.72 ± 1.64; after surgery 0.61 ± 0.61; p = 0.008). Conclusions: The steam roller maneuver is efficient for improving visual acuity in patients with pneumatic retinopexy, who achieve single intervention anatomical success; furthermore, the maneuver does not impair prognosis in eyes that require reintervention.

REFERENCES

1. Hatef E, Sena DF, Fallano KA, Crews J, Do DV. Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD008350.

2. Mandelcorn ED, Mandelcorn MS, Manusow JS. Update on pneumatic retinopexy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26:194-9.

3. Rootman DB, Luu S, Conti S, Mandell M, Devenyi R, Lam WC, et al. Predictors of treatment failure for pneumatic retinopexy. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48:549-52.

4. Chan CK, Lin SG, Nuthi AS, Salib DM. Pneumatic retinopexy for the repair of retinal detachments: a comprehensive review (1986-2007). Surv Ophthalmol. 2008;53:443-78.

5. Yanyali A, Horozoglu F, Bayrak YI, Celik E, Nohutcu AF. Steamroller versus basic technique in pneumatic retinopexy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina. 2007;27:74-82.

6. Gorovoy IR, Eller AW, Friberg TR, Coe R. Characterization of pneumatic retinopexy failures and the pneumatic pump: a new complication of pneumatic retinopexy. Retina. 2014;34:700-4.

7. Tornambe PE, Hilton GF. Pneumatic retinopexy. A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial comparing pneumatic retinopexy with scleral buckling. The Retinal Detachment Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1989; 96:772-84.

8. Goldman DR, Shah CP, Heier J. Expanded criteria for pneumatic retinopexy and potential cost savings. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:318-26.

9. Ling J, Noori J, Safi F, Eller AW. Pneumatic retinopexy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in pseudophaquia. Semin Ophthalmol. 2016; 6:1‑4.

10. Rahat F, Nowroozzadeh MH, Rahimi M, Farvardin M, Namat, AJ, Sarvestani AS, et al. Pneumatic retinopexy for primary repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Retina. 2015;35:1247-55.

11. Cohen E, Zerach A, Mimouni M, Barak A. Reassessment of pneumatic retinopexy for primary treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2033-7.

12. Fabian ID, Kinori M, Efrati M, Alhalel A, Desatnik H, Hai OV, et al. Pneumatic retinopexy for the repair of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a 10-year retrospective analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:166-71.

13. Gilca M, Duval R, Goodyear E, Olivier S, Cordahi G. Factors associated with outcomes of pneumatic retinopexy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a retrospective review of 422 cases. Retina. 2014;34 693-9.