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).
{"title":"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).","authors":"Serena Shah, Brandon Chou, Marissa Patel, Arjun Watane, Lea Shah, Nicolas Yannuzzi, Jayanth Sridhar","doi":"10.1097/ICU.0000000000001039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>No significant trends were found for average number of services ( P = 0.153) of PnR after the publication of PIVOT results.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50604,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"217-222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000001039","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Ophthalmology is an indispensable resource featuring key up-to-date and important advances in the field from around the world. With renowned guest editors for each section, every bimonthly issue of Current Opinion in Ophthalmology delivers a fresh insight into topics such as glaucoma, refractive surgery and corneal and external disorders. With ten sections in total, the journal provides a convenient and thorough review of the field and will be of interest to researchers, clinicians and other healthcare professionals alike.