Retrospective cohort study evaluates self-indentation technique's efficacy and safety in retinal detachment repair, suggesting it as a viable alternative.
Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a ring indenter scleral self-indentation technique for basal vitrectomy under noncontact wide-angle viewing in primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair compared with conventional assistant-assisted indentation. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled 99 eyes of 99 primary RRD patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy with basal vitreous shaving from August 2023 to May 2025, with ≥6 months follow-up. Patients were divided into study group (52 eyes, surgeon’s finger ring scleral self-indentation) and control group (47 eyes, conventional assistant-assisted indentation). Main outcomes: retinal redetachment rate, final BCVA, and shaving-induced retinal breaks (SIRBs) incidence. Results: The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The retinal redetachment rate was 1.92% (1/52) in the study group and 2.13% (1/47) in the control group (P=1.000). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in BCVA after the surgery compared with the preoperative values (P<0.0001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the final BCVA (P=0.365) and BCVA improvement (P=0.168). The incidence of SIRBs was one case in each group (P=1.000). No intraoperative instrument displacement, infusion cannula dislodgement, or anesthesia-related complications occurred in either group. Conclusions: The ring indenter scleral self-indentation technique is a safe and effective alternative to assistant-assisted indentation for basal vitreous clearance during RRD vitrectomy. This cost-effective technique eliminates the need for assistant support or chandelier illumination, offering the advantages of autonomous and precise manipulation, clear visualization, and manpower conservation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: