Long-Term Redetachment Rates of Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Pars Plana Vitrectomy in Retinal Detachment: A PIVOT Post Hoc Analysis.

IF 4.4 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmology. Retina Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1016/j.oret.2024.08.011
Tugche S Chen, Yasmin Motekalem, Isabela Martins Melo, Roxane J Hillier, Alan R Berger, Louis R Giavedoni, David T Wong, Filiberto Altomare, Rajeev H Muni
{"title":"Long-Term Redetachment Rates of Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Pars Plana Vitrectomy in Retinal Detachment: A PIVOT Post Hoc Analysis.","authors":"Tugche S Chen, Yasmin Motekalem, Isabela Martins Melo, Roxane J Hillier, Alan R Berger, Louis R Giavedoni, David T Wong, Filiberto Altomare, Rajeev H Muni","doi":"10.1016/j.oret.2024.08.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess long-term redetachment rates of the Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial (PIVOT).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>PIVOT trial participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was performed at St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada. PIVOT trial participants who had undergone either pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were assessed for long-term redetachment by chart review or telephone interview. The latter was the only accepted method for those with <2 years of follow-up. Patients were only eligible if no reintervention to reattach the retina was performed within the first year of the initial procedure.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Long-term redetachment rates for PnR vs. PPV after RRD repair.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-one participants who underwent PPV and 62 who underwent PnR were analyzed. The long-term redetachment rates were 0% and 1.61% (1/62) in the PPV and PnR groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The mean follow-up duration in years was 5.43 ± 3.60 vs. 5.51 ± 3.03 in the PPV and PnR groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference in long-term redetachment rates for PnR vs. PPV. Both procedures are durable treatment options for RRD over an extended period, rarely requiring additional intervention for redetachment.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":19501,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Retina","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Retina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2024.08.011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess long-term redetachment rates of the Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial (PIVOT).

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Subjects: PIVOT trial participants.

Methods: This study was performed at St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada. PIVOT trial participants who had undergone either pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) or pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were assessed for long-term redetachment by chart review or telephone interview. The latter was the only accepted method for those with <2 years of follow-up. Patients were only eligible if no reintervention to reattach the retina was performed within the first year of the initial procedure.

Main outcome measures: Long-term redetachment rates for PnR vs. PPV after RRD repair.

Results: Sixty-one participants who underwent PPV and 62 who underwent PnR were analyzed. The long-term redetachment rates were 0% and 1.61% (1/62) in the PPV and PnR groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The mean follow-up duration in years was 5.43 ± 3.60 vs. 5.51 ± 3.03 in the PPV and PnR groups, respectively.

Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in long-term redetachment rates for PnR vs. PPV. Both procedures are durable treatment options for RRD over an extended period, rarely requiring additional intervention for redetachment.

Financial disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气动视网膜剥离术与玻璃体旁切除术治疗视网膜脱落的长期再脱落率:PIVOT 事后分析。
目的:评估气动视网膜剥离术与玻璃体切割术治疗原发性风湿性视网膜脱落结果随机试验(PIVOT)的长期再脱落率:设计:随机对照试验:方法:本研究在加拿大多伦多 Unity Health 多伦多圣迈克尔医院进行。通过病历审查或电话访谈的方式,对接受过气动视网膜修复术或ppv术进行rd修复的PIVOT试验参与者进行长期再脱落评估。对于随访时间不足两年的患者,后者是唯一可接受的方法。只有在初次手术后的第一年内未再次进行视网膜粘连干预的患者才符合条件:主要结果指标:RRD修复术后,气动视网膜剥离术与ppv术的长期再脱落率:结果:分析了61名ppv参与者和62名气动视网膜修复参与者。ppv组和气动视网膜修复组的长期再脱落率分别为0%和1.61%(1/62)(p= 0.32)。ppv组和气动视网膜修复组的平均随访时间分别为5.43+/-3.60年和5.51+/-3.03年:结论:气动视网膜剥脱术与ppv术的长期再脱落率在统计学上没有明显差异。这两种手术都是长期治疗视网膜脱落的持久方法,很少需要额外的再脱落干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Retina
Ophthalmology. Retina Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
33 days
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum Editorial Board Table of Contents Bilateral Purtscher-Like Retinopathy Associated with Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Thrombotic Microangiopathy Iris Flocculus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1