ReviewOphthalmology and therapy2023
Pneumatic Retinopexy Versus Pars Plana Vitrectomy for the Management of Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of modified pneumatic retinopexy with transscleral subretinal fluid drainage for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2026Article
- Pneumatic retinopexy in the real world: A critical reappraisal of the PIVOT trial.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Implementation of pneumatic retinopexy in the Japanese population.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Review
- Baseline characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments meeting the PIVOT trial criteria in an eye referral center in Colombia: case series.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Outcomes of pneumatic retinopexy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in a Japanese cohort.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of drainage retinotomy on surgical outcomes of retinal detachment: insights from the Japan-Retinal Detachment Registry.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Surgical managements for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2024Article
- Outcomes and variables that impact pneumatic retinopexies.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Pneumatic Retinopexy Preceding Pars Plana Vitrectomy in Managing Combined Retinal and Choroidal Detachment: A Retrospective Study of 64 Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Efficacy of pneumatic retinopexy in young adults with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPneumatic retinopexy (PnR) was proposed as an alternative to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in certain circumstances. PnR is an outpatient procedure and more cost-effective. However, its benefits should be judged alongside its success rate and adverse events. Herein, we compare the efficacy and safety of PnR and PPV for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Observational and interventional studies comparing the efficacy and safety of PnR and PPV were included. The outcomes were the success rate of the treatment, improvement in visual acuity, and adverse event rates. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the lens and macula status. Eleven articles were eligible to enter our study; these consisted of 11,346 patients with a mean age of 74.1.
resultsPnR was superior to PPV in terms of retinal displacement, photoreceptor integrity, visual function, and vertical metamorphopsia scores. In the meta-analysis, PPV showed higher a reattachment rate than PnR (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.25-5.11). Subgroup analysis showed that the advantage of PPV over PnR was more pronounced in studies with fewer phakic eyes, more macula-on patients, and in cases with primary PnR failure. While PnR patients had better pre-op (SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI = - 1.16 to 0.00) and post-op (SMD = - 0.45, 95% CI = - 0.60 to - 0.30) LogMAR, the improvement in visual acuity after surgery was higher in PPV patients (SMD = 0.49, 95% CI = - 0.15 to 1.13).
conclusionThe success rate of PnR was higher in studies published after 2015 compared to previous studies (82% vs. 59%). Cataract formation and surgery were significantly higher in the PPV arm, while the occurrence of new retinal tears was more frequent in the PnR group. PnR can be used as the primary procedure for RRD repair in selected cases. However, we propose some modifications to the PIVOT criteria, e.g., the exclusion of cases presenting with several risk factors of poor outcomes.
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.