ArticleBMC ophthalmology2019
Comparative study of endolaser versus cryocoagulation in vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensor-integrated dual-clad fiber probe for OCT-guided retinal endolaser photocoagulation.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Instrument-integrated optical coherence tomography for quantitative assessment of tissue alteration in retinal endolaser photocoagulation.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Anatomical effects of ablation of the anterior retina in small animal eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Outer retinal features in OCT predict visual recovery after primary macula-involving retinal detachment repair.PloS one · 2022Article
- Predictive Risk Factors for Retinal Redetachment Following Uncomplicated Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Successful Treatment of Peripheral Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy with Cryocoagulation During Retinal Detachment Repair - A New Surgical Technique.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the influence of different types of retinopexy on the outcome of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair.
methodAll patients with RRD who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) between January 2013 and December 2017 were included. Analysed surgical factors were types of retinopexy (cryocoagulation, endolaser, combined). Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with primary proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR), and/or the necessity of a primary silicone oil fill.
resultsA total of 1017 eyes with retinal detachment were included. The predominant type of retinopexy used during PPV was cryocoagulation in 492 eyes, followed by a combined cryocogulation/endolaser in 306 eyes and laserretinopexy in only 219 eyes. Overall, the re-detachment rate was 10.1%. In most of the cases (53.6%) the main reason for re-detachment was insufficient retinopexy, followed by a PVR-reaction in 37.3%, and new site break in 9.1%. No significant difference in the rate of re-detachment was found between the different types of retinopexy (p = 0.309). However, subgroup analysis showed a significantly higher rate of re-detachment in patients with a primary PVR (p = 0.0003), and in the group with silicone oil as the primary tamponade (p = 0.0001).
conclusionThe data suggests that the type of retinopexy has little relevance for the surgical outcome of PPV for the primary RRD. However, patients with primary PVR and primary silicone oil fills were at a significantly increased risk for re-detachment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.