You are on page 1of 10

Anatomic and Visual Outcomes of Scleral

Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in


Pseudophakic and Aphakic Retinal Detachment
Six-Month Follow-up Results of a Single Operation—
Report No. 1
Hamid Ahmadieh, MD,1 Siamak Moradian, MD,1 Hooshang Faghihi, MD,2 Mohammad M. Parvaresh, MD,3
Heshmatollah Ghanbari, MD,4 Morsal Mehryar, MD,5 Ebadollah Heidari, MD,6 Hasan Behboudi, MD,7
Touka Banaee, MD,8 Banafsheh Golestan, PhD,1 for the Pseudophakic and Aphakic Retinal Detachment (PARD) Study
Group*
Purpose: To compare the anatomic and visual results and complications of conventional scleral buckling
versus primary vitrectomy for management of pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment.
Design: Prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial.
Participants: Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 patients with pseudophakic or aphakic retinal detachment.
Intervention: Eligible eyes were assigned randomly either to conventional scleral buckling or primary
vitrectomy without any buckle.
Main Outcome Measures: Visual results, retinal reattachment rate, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, macular
pucker, cystoid macular edema, choroidal detachment, intraocular pressure, extraocular muscle dysfunction, and
anisometropia.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the
single-operation retinal reattachment rate at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month follow-up examinations. Patients in the
buckle group had 28% greater likelihood of anatomic success compared with those in the vitrectomy group
(odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–2.24), indicating no statistically significant difference. Prolifer-
ative vitreoretinopathy was the main cause of anatomic failure in both groups and occurred independent of the
surgical technique used. Best-corrected visual acuity at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month postoperative follow-up
examinations showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Six months after surgery,
12.8% of eyes in the buckle group and 11.3% of eyes in the vitrectomy group achieved visual acuity of 20/40 or
better. The difference between the 2 groups was not statistically significant. Corresponding figures were 66.3%
and 64.5% for visual acuity of 20/200 or better in the buckle and vitrectomy groups, respectively, again with no
statistically significant difference. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of complications.
Conclusions: Scleral buckling and primary vitrectomy without an encircling band have comparable results in
pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment. The choice of surgical technique depends on various factors,
including patient compliance, cost of surgery, experience and capability of surgeons, and availability of appropriate
instrumentation. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1421–1429 © 2005 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Approximately 30% to 40% of rhegmatogenous retinal de- buckling is a standard surgical method to manage RD after
tachments (RDs) occur after cataract surgery.1,2 Scleral cataract surgery. Nevertheless, the outcomes of scleral
buckling in aphakic and pseudophakic eyes generally are
Originally received: September 7, 2004.
Accepted: February 11, 2005. Manuscript no. 2004-83. Presented at: American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting,
1
Ophthalmic Research Center, Labbafinejad Medical Center, Tehran, Iran. November, 2003; Anaheim, California.
2
Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Supported by the National Research Center of Medical Sciences, Tehran,
3
Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Iran, and the Ophthalmic Research Center of Shaheed Beheshti University
4
of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Feiz Hospital, Esfahan, Iran.
5
None of the authors have a financial interest in the subject matter of the article.
Khalili Eye Hospital, Shiraz, Iran.
6
Correspondence to Hamid Ahmadieh, MD, Ophthalmic Research Center,
Nikoukari Hospital, Tabriz, Iran. Labbafinejad Medical Center, Pasdaran Ave. Boostan 9 St., Tehran 16666,
7
Amiralmomenin Hospital, Rasht, Iran. Iran. E-mail: hahmadieh@hotmail.com.
8
Emam Reza Hospital, Mashad, Iran. *For Study Group membership, see “Appendix.”

© 2005 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology ISSN 0161-6420/05/$–see front matter 1421.e1
Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.02.018
Ophthalmology Volume 112, Number 8, August 2005

less favorable than in phakic eyes.3,4 The range of anatomic Exclusion Criteria
success varies from 61.5% to 80% in cases of pseudophakic
Patients with history of RD surgery in the affected eye, ocular
and aphakic RD managed by scleral buckling.3–5 Undiag- trauma, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, uveitis, macular hole, wet
nosed retinal breaks are an important cause of failure in type age-related macular degeneration and macular geographic
these cases resulting from the smaller size and anterior atrophy, giant retinal tear, PVR greater than grade B, 1-eyed
location of retinal breaks as well as incomplete fundus view patients, patients younger than 15 years of age, patients with dense
because of anterior or posterior capsular fibrosis, cortical vitreous hemorrhage obscuring fundus view, and those with a
remnants, poor pupillary dilation, vitreous opacities, and localized detachment extending less than 1 quadrant with a definite
optical aberrations secondary to the intraocular lens (IOL) retinal break were excluded from the study.
itself.6 In addition to unseen retinal breaks, proliferative After recording data in information sheets and applying the
inclusion criteria, patients were randomly allocated into one of the
vitreoretinopathy (PVR) has been shown to occur more
following treatment groups: (1) scleral buckling or (2) vitrectomy
frequently in pseudophakic and aphakic RD.3,7 without an encircling band or any buckle. Simple random assign-
Recent advances in vitrectomy technique have encour- ment was performed using SPSS software (version 10.0).23 All
aged vitreoretinal surgeons to expand the role of primary patients were operated either by an attending vitreoretinal surgeon
pars plana vitrectomy in the management of uncomplicated or by vitreoretinal fellows with at least 6 months of training.
RDs.8 –14 Primary vitrectomy especially has been consid- The clinical trial was approved by the Review Board/ Ethics
ered as first-line surgical treatment in cases of pseudophakic Committee of the Ophthalmic Research Center.
and aphakic RD.14 –20 The rationale for such an approach
includes the ability to remove retained lens material, vitre- Surgical Technique
ous opacities, and retinal pigment epithelial cells, while
allowing controlled drainage of subretinal fluid. Other po- Scleral Buckling. Conventional techniques of scleral buckling
tential advantages of primary vitrectomy in these cases may were used for the buckle group: after a 360° limbal peritomy and
passing traction sutures under the rectus muscles, retinal breaks
be the ability to visualize small retinal breaks with or were localized (if possible) and sutures were placed in the sclera
without simultaneous scleral depression and appropriate such that the buckle indented the site of the break and 1 clock hour
application of retinopexy. The absence of risk of cataract on either side, 4 mm posterior and 2 to 3 mm anterior to it. If
formation is another reason for surgeons’ tendency to per- fishmouth phenomenon was a possibility because of the type of the
form primary vitrectomy in aphakic and pseudophakic eyes. break or if circumferential scleral buckling was not feasible, a
Recently, there have been retrospective and prospective meridional sponge (no. 505 or 507) was placed in addition to an
case series showing promising results of primary vitrectomy encircling band no. 240. There were cases in which no definite
in the management of pseudophakic and aphakic RD.15–20 retinal break could be found, either before or during the operation.
Most of these studies however, suffer from selection bias, In these cases, if the RD was incomplete, a circumferential buckle
(silicone tire no. 276) was used in the area of RD, but if there was
and the necessity of conducting a controlled randomized total RD, the same buckle was used for 360°. In all cases, an
trial has been emphasized by many authors.13–15,18,19,21,22 encircling band no. 240 was also placed to produce a moderate
Our study was designed as a multicenter controlled clin- buckle height. Cryotherapy was used to induce a chorioretinal scar
ical trial to compare the anatomic and visual outcomes of when the retinal break had been localized and scleral sutures had
scleral buckling with primary vitrectomy alone in pseu- been placed. Cryospots were applied at the edges of the breaks and
dophakic and aphakic RD. Herein, we report the primary not on their beds. Cryotherapy was not used in cases of unseen
outcomes of a single operation. These are the results of a retinal breaks; in such cases, 360° laser treatment was applied on
6-month follow-up study. the encircling buckle within 1 week after surgery.
For subretinal fluid (SRF) drainage, a 2-mm sclerotomy was
created approximately 1 clock hour adjacent to horizontal recti
muscles or beneath the vertical recti muscles, in loci in which the
greatest amount of SRF existed. After cauterization or diathermy
Patients and Methods of the choroidal bed at the sclerotomy site, SRF was drained and
the sclerotomy was closed with 8-0 silk suture. If severe ocular
Clinical Examination hypotony occurred after SRF drainage, saline solution was injected
intracamerally (in aphakic eyes) or intravitreally (in pseudophakic
All patients underwent an interview for comprehensive history, eyes). In cases of shallow RD or little SRF, the stage of subretinal
including onset of visual symptoms resulting from RD, date of fluid drainage was omitted.
cataract surgery, history of previous ocular operations, other ocular Primary Vitrectomy. Three-port pars plana vitrectomy was
disorders including glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy, ocular used for patients in the vitrectomy group. Sclerotomies were
trauma, and history of RD in the fellow eye. Clinical examination created 3 mm from the limbus, and a standard pars plana deep
included determination of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); vitrectomy was performed, avoiding debulking of the vitreous
relative afferent pupillary defect in the affected eye and refraction base. All vitreous attachments to the edge of retinal breaks were
of the fellow eye; slit-lamp examination, including assessment of removed, as were attachments to the IOL, iris, or wound. Subreti-
the anterior segment, type, and position of IOL and integrity of the nal fluid was drained using perfluorocarbon liquid. Perfluorocar-
posterior capsule; and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement. bon liquid was injected on the posterior pole through a 20-gauge
Funduscopic examination was performed to evaluate the extent of blunt cannula as a single large bubble. This resulted in subretinal
RD, the presence of any predisposing pathologic features in the fluid egressing from the preexisting peripheral retinal break(s).
peripheral retina, PVR grading, signs of myopic degeneration and Endolaser was used to create chorioretinal adhesions. If retinal
to find retinal breaks and to determine their location, type, and breaks could not be found, laser was used to create 2 to 3 rows of
number. Findings were recorded in relevant information sheets. burns posterior to the entire vitreous base. Finally, fluid–air ex-

1421.e2
Ahmadieh et al 䡠 Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy

change was followed by sulfur hexafluoride injection (20% non- Results


expansile concentration), using the flush technique. If some sub-
retinal fluid remained at the end of the surgery, no attempt was Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 patients (142 men) were
made to drain it by retinotomy. Patients were strictly advised to included in this study. The mean age was 62.5⫾11.2 years. Of 225
remain in prone position for 5 days; after that, the appropriate eyes, 144 (64%) were pseudophakic and the remaining were apha-
position was advised, depending on the location of the retinal kic. Retinal detachment had a mean extension of 3.08 quadrants
break. with involvement of the macula in all except 5 eyes. Before
Intraoperative findings related to surgical technique in both surgery, PVR grade B was present in all eyes. Of 225 eyes, 190
groups, as well as early postoperative complications including IOP (84.4%) had visual acuity of light perception or hand movements
rise, choroidal detachment, severe uveitis, and failure to achieve before surgery. No retinal breaks were detected in 67 eyes (29.8%)
retinal reattachment, were recorded in relevant information sheets. before surgery. One retinal break was seen in 127 eyes (56.4%). In
Patients were examined 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after the operation. 26 eyes (11.6%), there were 2 retinal breaks, and in 5 eyes (2.2%),
The following data were recorded in the information sheets: re- 3 retinal breaks were found. Overall, of the retinal breaks being
fractive error, BCVA, retinal reattachment, indications for a sec- noted before surgery, 152 (78.4%) were equatorial, 36 (18.6%)
ond operation, ocular deviation or impaired ocular movements, were located anterior to the equator, and 6 (3%) were in both loci.
severity of PVR resulting in retinal redetachment, choroidal de- Regarding type, 77.4% of the retinal breaks were flap tears, and the
tachment, cystoid macular edema (CME) and macular pucker remaining were round holes.
formation. Similar settings were provided to measure BCVA be-
fore and after the operation, and the optometrists were masked
about the status of the patients. In all cases of capsular opacity
Baseline Characteristics
(more than 2⫹) obscuring the surgeon’s view during the operation, Of 225 eligible eyes, 126 and 99 eyes underwent scleral buckling
a posterior capsulectomy with a diameter of 5 mm was created and vitrectomy, respectively. The 2 groups were matched for
(2⫹opacity was defined as an opacity that impeded visualization baseline characteristics except the following variables: patients’
of the second branching of retinal vessels). age, preoperative visual acuity, family history of RD, RD exten-
sion, vitreous incarceration into cataract wound or adhesion to iris,
and history of secondary IOL implantation (Table 1 [available at
Statistical Analysis http://aaojournal.org]).
Data were analyzed in 2 parts, descriptive and analytic. Descrip- Signs of myopic degeneration were present in 17.5% and
tive statistics were given by means (⫾standard deviation) for 28.3% of the buckle and vitrectomy groups, respectively, which
continuous variables and counts (%) for categorical variables. was of borderline statistical significance (Table 1).
Further analysis was carried out first by univariate analysis,
namely t test (or Mann–Whitney U test when necessary) for Anatomic Results
comparing means between groups and the chi-square test (or
Fisher exact test) for comparing categorical variables between The single-operation anatomic success rate at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and
groups. 6-month follow-up examinations was 82.5%, 73.8%, 72.2%, and
At the second step, means or counts of outcome variables were 68.2% in the buckle group and was 75.7%, 67.7%, 62.6%, and
compared between groups adjusting for confounders. This was 62.6% in the vitrectomy group, respectively. The difference be-
carried out by analysis of covariance and the Mantel–Haenzel test. tween the anatomic results in the 2 groups was not statistically
A 2-way repeated measure analysis of variance was used to com- significant by the chi-square test (Table 2). After further opera-
pare the changes of BCVA between the 2 groups over time tions, the final reattachment rate was 85% in the buckle group and
intervals. 92% in the vitrectomy group.
Finally, multiple regression and multiple logistic regression In the buckle group, 40 of 126 eyes (31.8%) and 37 of 99 eyes
analysis were used for taking into account the effects of covariates (37.4%) in the vitrectomy group developed retinal redetachment
on the outcome variables. Statistical level of significance was within 6 months after surgery. The vast majority of redetachments
preset at 0.05. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version occurred within 2 months (82.5% and 86.5% in the buckle and
10.0.23 vitrectomy groups, respectively; Fig 1). The most common cause
of retinal redetachment was PVR grade C (buckle group, 92.5%;
vitrectomy group, 94.6%). Proliferative vitreoretinopathy grade C
Sample Size Calculation was of both anterior and posterior types. Other causes of anatomic
failure within 6 months included missed and new retinal breaks:
The minimum sample size required to detect a 20% increase in 5% and 2.5% in the buckle group and 2.7% and 2.7% in the
retinal reattachment rate with primary vitrectomy compared with vitrectomy group, respectively (Fig 2).
scleral buckling at 95% confidence level with the power of 0.8 was The observed difference in retinal reattachment rate between
obtained using the following formula: the 2 groups at 6 months was 5.6% (68.2% in the buckle group vs.
62.6% in the vitrectomy group; Table 2), which was not statisti-
(u ⫹ v)2兵 p(1⫺p) ⫹ p0(1⫺p0)其2 cally significant. Although patients in the buckle group had a 28%
n⫽
(p⫺p0)2 more likelihood of anatomic success compared with those in the
vitrectomy group (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–
P ⫽ Retinal reattachment rate in vitrectomy group
2.24) at 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference
P0 ⫽ Retinal reattachment rate in scleral buckling group (as- between the 2 groups.
sumed to be 70%) Six-month postoperative anatomic success rates of myopic eyes
u ⫽ 0.95 in buckle and vitrectomy groups were 70.6% and 55%, respec-
v ⫽ 0.80 tively, with no statistically significant difference. The odds of
anatomic success in the buckle group compared with the vitrec-
A total sample size of 150 eyes (at least 75 eyes in each treatment tomy group adjusted for myopic degeneration was approximately
group) was calculated. 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.5–7.69), confirming that stratify-

1421.e3
Ophthalmology Volume 112, Number 8, August 2005

Table 2. Comparison of Surgical Results in the 2 Treatment Groups

Follow-up
Period (mos) Buckle Group Vitrectomy Group P Value
logMAR (BCVA; mean ⫾ [SD]) 1 1.25 (0.67) 1.24 (0.68) 0.92
2 1.08 (.65) 1.16 (0.70) 0.47
4 0.98 (.65) 1.01 (0.63) 0.84
6 0.96 (.68) 0.96 (.62) 1
Retinal reattachment (no. [%]) 1 104 (82.5) 75 (75.7) 0.26
2 93 (73.8) 67 (67.7) 0.77
4 91 (72.2) 62 (62.6) 0.32
6 86 (68.2) 62 (62.6) 0.24

BCVA ⫽ best-corrected visual acuity; logMAR ⫽ logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; SD ⫽ standard
deviation.

ing by myopic degeneration did not appreciably change the odds visual categories (20/40 or better, 20/200 to 20/50, less than
ratio. Nevertheless, in comparing the cases of retinal reattachment 20/200) is shown in Figure 4. The difference between the 2 groups
with cases of redetached retina after 6 months, myopic degenera- was not statistically significant (P ⫽ 0.95).
tion was found to have a statistically significant effect on the The BCVA (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution
anatomic outcome in both groups (P ⫽ 0.04). The anatomic [logMAR]) at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month postoperative follow-up
success rate in eyes with vitreous incarceration at the 6-month examinations were 1.25⫾0.67, 1.08⫾0.65, 0.98⫾0.65, and
follow-up examination in the buckle and vitrectomy groups were 0.96⫾0.68 in the buckle group and 1.24⫾0.68, 1.16⫾0.70,
57.1% and 66.7%, respectively, which did not show any statisti- 1.01⫾0.63, and 0.96⫾0.62 in the vitrectomy group, respectively.
cally significant difference (Fig 3). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2
In a logistic regression model, none of the preoperative vari- groups (Table 2). Based on a general linear model (2-way repeated
ables (patient age, preoperative visual acuity, family history of RD, measure), time had a significant effect on improving visual acuity.
RD extension, vitreous incarceration into cataract wound, history Visual acuity significantly improved after surgery compared with
of secondary IOL implantation) nor type of RD surgery (scleral preoperative visual acuity in both groups (P⬍0.0001). This im-
buckling vs. primary vitrectomy) had significant effect on ana- provement continued until 2 months after surgery in both groups
tomic success. (P ⫽ 0.007), but there was no significant improvement after 4
months (Figs 5, 6).
Multiple regression analysis showed that preoperative visual
Visual Results acuity was the only variable with a significant effect on postoper-
Of 86 eyes with reattached retinas after 6 months, 11 eyes (12.8%) ative visual acuity. The final model was: 0.345⫹0.277⫻logMAR
gained visual acuity of 20/40 or better in the buckle group. In the of preoperative BCVA, indicating that being in either surgical
vitrectomy group, 7 of 62 eyes with reattached retinas (11.3%) treatment group had no effect on postoperative visual acuity.
gained this level of visual acuity after 6 months (P ⫽ 0.78). Of 86
eyes, 57 eyes (66.3%) and 40 of 62 eyes (64.5%) achieved visual Complications
acuity of 20/200 or better in the buckle and vitrectomy groups,
respectively. Again, there was no statistically significant difference The rates of macular pucker at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month
between the 2 groups (P ⫽ 0.82). The distribution of visual acuity postoperative examinations were 15%, 15.9%, 22.2%, and
6 months after surgery in each treatment group according to 3 22.2% in the buckle group, respectively, and were 12.1%,

%
30

25
Retinal redetachment rate

20

Buckle
15
Vitrectomy
10

0
1st month 2nd month 4th month 6th month
Figure 1. Rate of retinal redetachment at follow-up examinations in each treatment group.

1421.e4
Ahmadieh et al 䡠 Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy

%
92.5 94.6 Buckle

Causes of retinal redetachment


100
90 Vitrectomy
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 5
2.5 2.7 2.7
10
0
New break Missed Break PVRC
Figure 2. Causes of retinal redetachment in each treatment group. PVRC ⫽ proliferative vitreoretinopathy grade C.

13.1%, 14.1%, and 22.2%, respectively, in the vitrectomy aphakic RD. The 2 treatment groups were matched for most
group. The rates of clinical CME were 11.1%, 9.5%, 8.7%, and of the preoperative characteristics (sex, interval of cataract
6.3% in the buckle group, respectively, and were 16.2%, 13.1%, surgery and RD, history of RD in the fellow eye, history of
9.1%, and 9.1%, respectively, in the vitrectomy group. The
rates of postoperative IOP more than 20 mmHg with medica-
neodymium:yttrium–aluminum– garnet laser capsulotomy,
tions were 11.9%, 8.7%, 7.1%, and 6.3% in the buckle group, macular status, IOL position, type of cataract surgery, IOP,
respectively, and were 10.1%, 9.1%, 7.1%, and 6.1%, respec- vitreous hemorrhage, relative afferent pupillary defect, ex-
tively, in the vitrectomy group. The rates of early postoperative traocular muscle dysfunction, and interval of RD symptoms
IOP rise (IOPⱖ20 mmHg) within 1 week after RD surgery in to RD surgery). There were, however, statistically signifi-
the buckle and vitrectomy groups were 24.6% and 26.3%, cant differences in some of the preoperative characteristics
respectively. The rates of choroidal detachment were 6.3%, in the 2 treatment groups. These variables included age,
3.2%, 1.6%, and 0%, respectively, in the buckle group and 2.0%
at month 1 and 0% at month 2 and thereafter, in the vitrectomy
BCVA (logMAR), family history of RD, RD extension,
group. The rates of extraocular muscle dysfunction in the vitreous incarceration into the cataract wound, and rate of
buckle and vitrectomy groups at 6 months were 4.0% and 0%, secondary IOL implantation. There was a borderline differ-
respectively. None of these complications showed any statisti- ence between the 2 groups related to the prevalence of
cally significant difference between the 2 groups (Table 3). myopic degeneration. The 2 groups were adjusted for these
variables.
There are no studies demonstrating a consistent relation
Discussion between patients’ age and anatomic success after RD sur-
gery. Most patients in both groups were cases with a history
We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the of age-related (senile) cataract surgery. The statistically
anatomic and visual outcomes of the 2 techniques (conven- significant difference between the mean age of patients in
tional scleral buckling vs. primary vitrectomy without the 2 treatment groups did not seem to be of clinical sig-
scleral buckle) in the management of pseudophakic and nificance. In addition, after adjusting for preoperative pa-

%
90
Anatomic success rate

80
70
60
50 Buckle
40 Vitrectomy
30
20
10
0
with vitreous incarceration without vitreous
incarceration
Figure 3. Comparison of anatomic success in eyes with and without vitreous incarceration in each treatment group.

1421.e5
Ophthalmology Volume 112, Number 8, August 2005

% Chronic inflammation and vitreous traction in these eyes


60
can increase the risk of CME and PVR. Vitrectomy already
50 has been shown to have a therapeutic role for CME in these
instances.26 In our study, anatomic success rate in these eyes
40
Percent

was slightly higher in the vitrectomy group, but the differ-


30 ence between the 2 treatment groups was not statistically
Buckle
significant.
20 Vitrectomy After adjusting for preoperative patients characteristics,
10 there was no statistically significant difference between the
2 treatment groups regarding the single-operation retinal
0 reattachment rates at the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-month follow-up
20/40 or 20/50 - Less than
examinations. The retinal reattachment rates were 82.5%
better 20/200 20/200
and 75.7% in the buckle and vitrectomy groups, respec-
Figure 4. Distribution of visual acuity 6 months after surgery in each tively, 1 month after surgery. Nevertheless, the retinal reat-
treatment group according to 3 visual categories. tachment rates declined to 68.2% in the scleral buckling
group and 62.6% in the vitrectomy group after 6 months.
tient characteristics, age showed no significant effect on the Most cases of retinal redetachment occurred within 1 to 2
outcomes of vitrectomy versus scleral buckling. months after the surgical procedure in both groups.
Review of previous reports showed no association be- Missed retinal breaks have been reported to be a signif-
tween a positive family history of RD and a lower rate of icant cause of anatomic failure in cases of pseudophakic and
anatomic success. There was no case of hereditary vitreo- aphakic RD. In our cases, the rate of unseen retinal breaks
retinal degeneration among our patients. was higher in the buckle group. Nevertheless, PVR was the
The relationship between myopic RD and surgical suc- main cause of anatomic failure in both groups. Our findings
cess has been in dispute. Burton and Lambert24 reported a are comparable with previous reports in the literature and
somewhat lower success rate in eyes with more than 4 D of confirm the high incidence of PVR in cases of aphakic and
myopia. Eyes with high myopia may have a slightly lower pseudophakic RD.3,7 The results of this study showed that
success rate when managed by scleral buckling. This in part primary vitrectomy, in comparison with scleral buckling,
results from an increased risk of complications during did not reduce the rate of PVR. In a study by Cowley et al27
placement of scleral sutures because of marked scleral thin- to identify the clinical risk factors for PVR, the use of
ning and an increased risk of choroidal hemorrhage during vitrectomy was revealed to be the strongest predictor. Many
drainage of subretinal fluid. However, high myopia has been authors, however, hypothesized that removal of the vitreous
mentioned as a risk factor for suprachoroidal hemorrhage traction bands and RPE cells may decrease the rate of
during pars plana vitrectomy.25 In our study, comparison of postoperative PVR.14 –20 This has been one of the main
6-month postoperative anatomic success rates of myopic reasons for suggesting primary vitrectomy as a substitute for
eyes in the buckle and vitrectomy groups did not show a scleral buckling in uncomplicated cases, especially for RDs
significant difference. However, when we compared cases after cataract surgery. The findings of this study, however,
of retinal redetachment with successful cases after 6 were not in line with this hypothesis. This study showed that
months, high myopia was found to have a predictive role for the occurrence of PVR as the main cause of retinal rede-
anatomic failure in both groups. tachment was independent of the surgical technique used
There are no reports on the correlation between vitreous (primary vitrectomy vs. scleral buckling).
incarceration into the cataract wound and anatomic success Isernhagen and Wilkinson28 evaluated the effect of pre-
rates of RD surgery. However, there are some clinical operative factors on final visual acuity after repair of pseu-
features in these eyes that may make the outcomes worse. dophakic RD with scleral buckling. Preoperative visual

2.5
Best corrected visual acuity

1.5
Buckle
1 vitrectomy

0.5

0
preop VA postop VA

Figure 5. Preoperative and 6 month postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (VA) in each treatment group according to logarithm of the minimum
angle of resolution.

1421.e6
Ahmadieh et al 䡠 Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy

2.5

Best corrected visual acuity


1.5 Buckle
Vitrectomy
1

0.5

0
Before 1st month 2nd month 4th month 6th month
operation

Figure 6. Improvement of best-corrected visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) after retinal detachment surgery over time in each
treatment group.

acuity was the most important variable. In our study, pre- vision after RD surgery. Duration of macular involvement is
operative visual acuity was also the single factor having the one of the most important variables associated with return
highest correlation with visual outcome. There was no sta- of central vision.28 There is a significant decrease in visual
tistically significant difference between the 2 treatment recovery with macula-off detachments lasting longer than 1
groups regarding visual results. In other words, being in week.29 The duration of RD with macular involvement in
either surgical technique group did not have a significant our series was longer than in other reports. Higher patient
effect on the visual outcome. This shows that preoperative age is associated with a trend toward reduced postoperative
visual acuity is the most influential factor on final vision not visual acuity.24,28 –30 Most of our patients were older, with
only in scleral buckling, but also with newer methods of RD a median age of 64 years. The extent of RD also has been
surgery. Improvement in postoperative visual acuity was shown to have an inverse relationship with anatomic and
observed during the follow-up period, especially during the visual outcomes.24,28,30 –32 Most RDs in both treatment
first 4 months after surgery. groups in our study were total or nearly total. Only 2.4% of
Macular involvement is an important factor influencing eyes in the scleral buckling group and 2.1% of eyes in the

Table 3. Surgical Complications in the 2 Treatment Groups

Follow-up
Period (mos) Buckle Group Vitrectomy Group *P Value
EOM dysfunction (no. [%]) 1 4 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0.12
2 5 (4.0) 1 (1.0) 0.22
4 5 (4.0) 0 (0.0) 0.07
6 5 (4.0) 0 (0.0) 0.07
Choroidal detachment (no. [%]) 1 8 (6.3) 2 (2.0) 0.10
2 4 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 0.13
4 2 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 0.50
6 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) —
Clinical CME (no. [%]) 1 14 (11.1) 16 (16.2) 0.41
2 12 (9.5) 13 (13.1) 0.51
4 11 (8.7) 9 (9.1) 1.0
6 8 (6.3) 9 (9.1) 0.43
Macular pucker (no. [%]) 1 19 (15.0) 12 (12.1) 0.40
2 20 (15.9) 13 (13.1) 0.69
4 28 (22.2) 14 (14.1) 0.13
6 28 (22.2) 22 (22.2) 1.0
Postoperative IOP ⬎20 mmHg with medications 1 15 (11.9) 10 (10.1) 0.66
(no. [%])
2 11 (8.7) 9 (9.1) 1.0
4 9 (7.1) 7 (7.1) 1.0
6 8 (6.3) 6 (6.1) 1.0
Anisometropia at sixth month (mean ⫾ [SD]) Sphere 1.92 (2.18) 1.78 (2.2) 0.76
Cylinder 0.44 (0.71) 0.26 (0.49) 0.20

CME ⫽ cystoid macular edema; EOM ⫽ extraocular mucle; IOP ⫽ intraocular pressure; SD ⫽ standard deviation.
*Fisher exact probability.

1421.e7
Ophthalmology Volume 112, Number 8, August 2005

vitrectomy group were macula-on. Proliferative vitreoreti- a variety of surgical techniques as substitutes for scleral
nopathy grade B already has been identified to be a risk buckling to repair uncomplicated RD, Wilkinson21 wrote an
factor for anatomic failure.33 All patients in our series editorial entitled “Wanted: Optimal Data Regarding Surgery
showed the signs of PVR grade B before surgery. Training for Retinal Detachment.” He emphasized the importance of
vitreoretinal fellows in educational centers performed some discovering the optimal method of repairing RDs and men-
of the operations. This also may have had a negative effect tioned that a large, prospective, randomized trial would be
on the results. required to answer this question. He assumed, however, that
Macular pucker is a common finding after RD surgery. It no single technique would be considered optimal for all
has been reported in 2% to 17% of detachment cases un- RDs. Our study provides adequate information in this re-
dergoing scleral buckling.34 Extensive RD and involvement gard.
of the macula have been noted to be associated with devel- We found that primary vitrectomy without scleral buckle
opment of macular pucker.34 Macular pucker also has been was not more effective than conventional scleral buckling in
reported as a frequent complication of primary vitrectomy the management of uncomplicated RD in eyes with a history
for pseudophakic and aphakic RD.19 We observed a high of cataract extraction. Based on our results, we believe that
rate of this complication in our study, and there was no at present, no single surgical technique can be considered as
statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment optimal and routine for all cases of pseudophakic and apha-
groups. The incidence of this complication increased grad- kic RD. It is noteworthy to consider some of the following
ually during the 6-month follow-up period. factors in selecting each of these options in this group of
Choroidal detachment has been reported as one of the patients: the costs of these operations, experience and ca-
most common complications of scleral buckling for repair pabilities of vitreoretinal surgeons, and the availability of
of pseudophakic and aphakic RD.3,5 In the series reported appropriate instrumentation. The possible effect of an en-
by Yoshida et al,5 it was the most common postoperative circling band on the rate of retinal reattachment in cases of
complication and was observed in 21.5% of the cases. In our primary vitrectomy remains a question that needs to be
series, this complication was more frequent in the scleral answered in another controlled study.
buckling group compared with the vitrectomy group, but the Acknowledgments. The PARD study group thanks Shahin
difference was not statistically significant. Yazdani, MD, Arash Anissian, MD, Zahra Rabbanikhah, MD,
Cystoid macular edema is another frequent complication Nasrin Rafati, MD, Mr Ali A. Aghdaee, Ms Maryam Ghazaee, Ms
after retinal surgery.34 It is more prevalent in aphakic than Leila Azadvari, and Mr Mohammad R. Farrokhian for their assis-
tance during the course of the study.
in phakic eyes. We evaluated the incidence of clinical CME
in our patients. There was no significant difference between
the 2 treatment groups regarding this complication. References
Refractive error changes after RD surgery can result in
anisometropia. In a study by Rubin,35 changes in refractive
error were related to the height of the scleral buckle and 1. Haimann MH, Burton TC, Brown CK. Epidemiology of reti-
nal detachment. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:289 –92.
were greater in phakic than in aphakic eyes. Among the 2. Ah-Fat FG, Sharma MC, Majid MA, et al. Trends in vitreo-
presumed advantages of primary vitrectomy without an retinal surgery at a tertiary referral centre: 1987 to 1996. Br J
encircling element over scleral buckling is the possibility of Ophthalmol 1999;83:396 – 8.
less induced anisometropia.19,20 In our study, postoperative 3. Ho PC, Tolentino FI. Pseudophakic retinal detachment. Sur-
anisometropia was analyzed considering spherical and cy- gical success rate with various types of IOLs. Ophthalmology
lindrical refractive errors separately, which revealed no 1984;91:847–52.
statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. 4. Cousins S, Boniuk I, Okun E, et al. Pseudophakic retinal
In most studies, early transient IOP rise was the most detachments in the presence of various IOL types. Ophthal-
common complication of primary vitrectomy combined mology 1986;93:1198 –208.
with fluid– gas exchange. In the studies by Bartz-Schmidt et 5. Yoshida A, Ogasawara H, Jalkh AE, et al. Retinal detachment
after cataract surgery. Surgical results. Ophthalmology 1992;
al15 and Speicher et al,20 this rate was reported to be 48% 99:460 –5.
and 17.9%, respectively. In our study, early postoperative 6. Yoshida A, Ogasawara H, Jalkh AE, et al. Retinal detachment
IOP rises (⬎20 mmHg with medication) in the buckle and after cataract surgery. Predisposing factors. Ophthalmology
vitrectomy groups were 24.6% and 26.3%, respectively, 1992;99:453–9.
which did not show any significant difference. Rates of IOP 7. Wilkinson CP. Pseudophakic retinal detachments. Retina
of more than 20 mmHg with medications again had no 1985;5:1– 4.
statistically significant difference between the 2 groups 6 8. Escoffery RF, Olk RJ, Grand MG, Boniuk I. Vitrectomy
months after surgery. without scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal
Persistent extraocular muscle dysfunction after buckle detachment. Am J Ophthalmol 1985;99:275– 81.
surgery has been reported in up to 4%, and most cases 9. Gartry DS, Chignell AH, Franks WA, Wong D. Pars plana
vitrectomy for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal de-
occurred in eyes with an encircling element.28 The rate of tachment uncomplicated by advanced proliferative vitreoreti-
this complication after vitrectomy was not reported in other nopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 1993;77:199 –203.
studies. In the current study, extraocular muscle dysfunction 10. Hakin KN, Lavin MJ, Leaver PK. Primary vitrectomy for
developed in 4% of cases in the buckle group and in no rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp
cases in the vitrectomy group 6 months after surgery. Ophthalmol 1993;231:344 – 6.
At the end of the previous decade, with the invention of 11. Heimann H, Bornfeld N, Friedrichs W, et al. Primary vitrec-

1421.e8
Ahmadieh et al 䡠 Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy

tomy without scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal vision and anatomic reattachment in rhegmatogenous retinal
detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1996;234: detachment with macula detached. Am J Ophthalmol 1981;92:
561– 8. 611–20.
12. Oshima Y, Emi K, Motokura M, Yamanishi S. Survey of 32. Greven CM, Sanders RJ, Brown GC, et al. Pseudophakic
surgical indications and results of primary pars plana vitrec- retinal detachments. Anatomic and visual results. Ophthalmol-
tomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Jpn J Ophthal- ogy 1992;99:257– 62.
mol 1999;43:120 – 6. 33. Bonnet M. The development of severe proliferative vitreoreti-
13. Oshima Y, Yamanishi S, Sawa M, et al. Two-year follow-up nopathy after retinal detachment surgery. Grade B: a deter-
study comparing primary vitrectomy with scleral buckling for mining risk factor. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1988;
macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Jpn J Oph- 226:201–5.
thalmol 2000;44:538 – 49. 34. Wilkinson CP, Rice TA. Michel’s Retinal Detachment. 2nd
14. Brazitikos PD. The expanding role of primary pars plana ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1997:1039 – 42.
vitrectomy in the treatment of rhegmatogenous noncompli- 35. Rubin ML. The induction of refractive errors by retinal de-
cated retinal detachment. Semin Ophthlmol 2000;15:65–77. tachment surgery. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1975;73:
15. Bartz-Schmidt KU, Kirchhof B, Heimann K. Primary vitrec- 452–90.
tomy for pseudophakic retinal detachment. Br J Ophthalmol
1996;80:346 –9.
16. Desai UR, Strassman IB. Combined pars plana vitrectomy and Appendix: The Pseudophakic and Aphakic
scleral buckling for pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detach-
ments in which a break is not seen preoperatively. Ophthalmic Retinal Detachment (PARD) Study Group
Surg Lasers 1997;28:718 –22.
17. Devenyi RG, de Carvalho Nakamura H. Combined scleral Clinical Sites That Participated in This Study
buckle and pars plana vitrectomy as a primary procedure for
pseudophakic retinal detachments. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran. Principal investigator: Hoo-
1999;30:615– 8. shang Faghihi, MD.
18. Brazitikos PD, D’Amico DJ, Tsinopoulos IT, Stangos NT. Coinvestigators: Ali Tabatabaei, MD, Ali R. Lasheie,
Primary vitrectomy with perfluoro-n-octane use in the treat- MD, Reza Karkhaneh, MD, Mohammad Riazi, MD, Ahmad
ment of pseudophakic retinal detachment with undetected Mirshahi , MD, Zahra Alami Harandi, MD, Mohammad R.
retinal breaks. Retina 1999;19:103–9. Mansouri, MD, Mehrdad Mehrazma, MD, Hamid Ghazi,
19. Campo RV, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, et al. Pars plana vitrec- MD, Fedra Hajizadeh, MD.
tomy without scleral buckle for pseudophakic retinal detach-
ments. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1811–5, discussion 1816.
Labbafinejad Medical Center, Tehran. Principal inves-
20. Speicher MA, Fu AD, Martin JP, von Fricken MA. Primary tigator: Siamak Moradian, MD.
vitrectomy alone for repair of retinal detachments following Coinvestigators: Hamid Ahmadieh, MD, Mohsen Az-
cataract surgery. Retina 2000;20:459 – 64. armina, MD, Masoud Soheilian, MD, Mohammad H. Deh-
21. Wilkinson CP. Wanted: optimal data regarding surgery for ghan, MD, Mohsen Shahsavari, MD.
retinal detachment. Retina 1998;18:199 –201. Rasool Akram Hospital, Tehran. Principal investiga-
22. Heimann H, Hellmich M, Bornfeld N, et al. Scleral buckling tor: Mohammad M. Parvaresh, MD.
versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detach- Coinvestigators: Mehdi Modarreszadeh, MD, Masih
ment (SPR Study): design issues and implications. SPR Study Hashemi, MD, Aminollah Nikeghbali, MD, Mohammad M.
report no. 1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2001;239: Noorani, MD.
567–74.
Khalili Eye Hospital, Shiraz. Principal investigator:
23. SPSS [computer program]. Version 10.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.;
1999.
Morsal Mehryar, MD.
24. Burton TC, Lambert RW Jr. A predictive model for visual Coinvestigators: Morteza Mehdizadeh, MD, Mansour
acuity recovery following retinal detachment surgery. Oph- Rahimi, MD.
thalmology 1978;85:619 –25. Feiz Hospital, Esfahan. Principal investigator: Heshma-
25. Tabandeh H, Flynn HW Jr. Suprachoroidal hemorrhage during tollah Ghanbari, MD.
pars plana vitrectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2001;12:179 – 85. Nikoukari Hospital, Tabriz. Principal investigator:
26. Harbour JW, Smiddy WE, Rubsamen PE, et al. Pars plana Ebadollah Heidari, MD.
vitrectomy for chronic pseudophakic cystoid macular edema. Amiralmomenin Hospital, Rasht. Principal investiga-
Am J Ophthalmol 1995;120:302–7. tor: Hasan Behboudi, MD.
27. Cowley M, Conway BP, Campochiaro PA, et al. Clinical risk Emam Reza Hospital, Mashad. Principal investigator:
factors for proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Arch Ophthalmol
Touka Banaei, MD.
1989;107:1147–51.
28. Isernhagen RD, Wilkinson CP. Visual acuity after the repair of Emam Hosein Hospital, Tehran. Principal investiga-
pseudophakic retinal detachments involving the macula. Ret- tor: Morteza Entezari, MD.
ina 1989;9:15–21.
29. Ross WH, Kozy DW. Visual recovery in macula-off rhegmat- Coordinating Center
ogenous retinal detachments. Ophthalmology 1998;105:
2149 –53. Ophthalmic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of
30. Ahmadieh H, Entezari M, Soheilian M, et al. Factors influ- Medical Sciences: Siamak Moradian, MD, Hamid Ah-
encing anatomic and visual results in primary scleral buckling. madieh, MD, Arash Anissian, MD, Zahra Rabbanikhah,
Eur J Ophthalmol 2000;10:153–9. MD, Nasrin Rafati, MD, Farshid Siadat, MD, Hamid Soori,
31. Tani P, Robertson DM, Langworthy A. Prognosis for central PhD, Banafsheh Golestan, PhD.

1421.e9
Ophthalmology Volume 112, Number 8, August 2005

Table 1. Basic Characteristics of Patients in the 2 Treatment Groups at the Beginning of Study

Buckle Group Vitrectomy Group P Value


Sex (no [%])
Male 76 (60.3) 66 (66.7) 0.33
Female 50 (39.7) 33 (33.3)
Age (mean [⫾SD]) 64.23 (11.34) 60.63 (13.65) 0.03
LogMAR (BCVA mean [⫾SD]) 2.21 (0.67) 2.37 (0.46) 0.04
Interval of cataract surgery with RD (mos; mean [⫾SD]) 53 (66.8) 45 (64.2) 0.39
Family history of RD (no. [%]) 0 (.0) 4 (4.0) 0.02
Myopic degeneration (no. [%]) 22 (17.5) 28 (28.3) 0.07
History of RD in sound eye (no. [%]) 11 (8.7) 3 (3.0) 0.09
RD extension (mean quadrant [SD]) 2.95 (0.92) 3.27 (3.02) 0.01
Vitreous in wound (no [%]) 14 (11.1) 24 (24.2) 0.01
Secondary IOL (no. [%]) 0 (0.0) 9 (9.1) 0.00
History of YAG capsulotomy (no. [%]) 24 (19.0) 18 (18.2) 0.98
Macula on (no. [%]) 3 (2.4) 2 (2.0) 0.86
IOL status (no. [%])
Aphakia 47 (37.3) 34 (34.4)
AC IOL 16 (12.7) 20 (20.2) 0.31
PC IOL 63 (50.0) 45 (45.4)
Type of cataract surgery (no. [%])
ICCE with vitreous loss ⫾ AC IOL 23 (18.3) 14 (14.2)
ICCE without vitreous loss ⫾ AC IOL 7 (5.6) 6 (6.1)
ECCE ⫹ PCIOL with vitreous loss 10 (7.9) 8 (8.1)
ECCE ⫹ PCIOL without vitreous loss 46 (36.5) 41 (41.4) 0.33
ECCE with vitreous loss ⫾ AC IOL 21 (16.7) 24 (24.2)
ECCE without vitreous loss ⫾ AC IOL 10 (7.9) 5 (5.0)
PE ⫹ PCIOL with vitreous loss 1 (0.8) 0 (.0)
PE ⫹ PCIOL without vitreous loss 8 (6.3) 1 (1.0)
Vitreous loss 54 (42.8) 45 (45.4) 0.39
IOP (mean [⫾SD]) 9.72 (4.0) 10.58 (3.73) 0.11
Choroidal detachment (no. [%]) 3 (2.4) 2 (2.1) 0.86
Vitreous hemorrhage (no. [%]) 9 (7.2) 9 (9.1) 0.62
RAPD (mean [⫾SD]) 1.35 (0.9) 1.37 (0.93) 0.84
Predisposing lesions of RD (no. [%]) 37 (30.1) 24 (24.5) 0.36
Interval of RD Symptoms with RD surgery (days; mean 20.7 (16.5) 22.3 (16.1) 0.56
[⫾SD])

AC IOL ⫽ anterior chamber intraocular lens; BCVA ⫽ best-corrected visual acuity; ECCE ⫽ extracapsular cataract extraction; ICCE ⫽ intracapsular
cataract extraction; IOL ⫽ intraocular lens; IOP ⫽ intraocular pressure; LogMAR ⫽ logarithm of minimum angle of resolution; PCIOL ⫽ posterior
chamber intraocular lens; PE ⫽ phacoemulsification; RAPD ⫽ relative afferent pupillary defect; RD ⫽ retinal detachment.

1421.e10

You might also like