American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 4 , Pages 623-629.e1, April 2010

Comparison of Persistent Submacular Fluid in Vitrectomy and Scleral Buckle Surgery for Macula-Involving Retinal Detachment

  • Yong-Kyu Kim

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea
  • ,
  • Se Joon Woo

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi, Korea
  • ,
  • Kyu Hyung Park

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi, Korea
    • Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to Kyu Hyung Park, Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, No. 300, Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do 463-707, Republic of Korea
  • ,
  • Young Suk Yu

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea
  • ,
  • Hum Chung

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    • Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea

Accepted 11 November 2009. published online 10 February 2010.

Purpose

To compare the frequency of persistent submacular fluid (SMF) and sequential visual outcomes after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and scleral buckling (SB) in recent-onset macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD), and thus to determine the role of persistent SMF on visual outcome with different surgical methods.

Design

Observational case series.

Methods

Sixty-one patients (61 eyes) who underwent successful PPV (16 patients) or SB (45 patients) underwent thorough ophthalmologic examinations including optical coherence tomography at 1 month after surgery, as well as every 3 months until SMF disappeared. The SB group was divided into 2 groups according to the presence (SB-SMF+) or absence (SB-SMF−) of persistent SMF at 1 month after surgery. Preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuities were compared among the different surgical groups and also were analyzed depending on the RD duration (acute, symptom duration ≤ 7 days; subacute, symptom duration > 7 and ≤ 30 days).

Results

Persistent SMF at 1 month after surgery was more frequent in the SB group (55.6%) than it was in the PPV group (6.25%; P = .006). The SB-SMF+ group showed worse postoperative best-corrected visual acuity than the PPV or SB-SMF− groups at 6 to 12 months after surgery, whereas there were no significant differences in the final visual acuity among the groups. This difference in visual recovery was not observed in patients with subacute RD.

Conclusions

The similar visual recovery patterns seen in the PPV and SB-SMF− groups suggest that persistent SMF is a more important prognostic factor than surgical method is in the setting of acute onset and successful RD surgery.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9394(09)00881-2

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.11.018

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 149, Issue 4 , Pages 623-629.e1, April 2010