Assessment of surgical outcomes with and without scleral depression in vitrectomy for retinal detachment, indicating no significant differences.
Purpose: This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes of vitrectomy performed using a non-contact wide-angle viewing system for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, with a focus on the presence or absence of scleral depression.Methods: In total, 128 eyes from patients who underwent vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment between March 2019 and January 2023 were included. Surgical outcomes were compared between a group who underwent scleral depression during vitrectomy and a group who did not.Results: The surgical success rate was 88.9% in the scleral depression group and 93.9% in the non-depression group, showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.323). Similarly, at the final postoperative follow-up, there was no significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity between the groups: 0.409 ± 0.063 logMAR in the scleral depression group and 0.499 ± 0.090 logMAR in the non-depression group (p = 0.787). Univariate analysis identified inferior rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (odds ratio [OR] = 6.125, p = 0.006) and intraocular silicone oil tamponade (OR = 33.333, p = 0.001) as significant factors associated with recurrence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Multivariate analysis confirmed inferior rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (OR = 10.185, p = 0.004) and intraocular silicone oil tamponade (OR = 47.739, p = 0.001) as independent predictors. Conversely, scleral depression was not significantly associated with recurrence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (OR = 0.525, p = 0.324).Conclusions: The use of a wide-angle viewing system during vitrectomy, regardless of whether scleral depression was performed, showed no significant impact on surgical success rates, visual outcomes, or recurrence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cho et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: