ArticleTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Efficacy of pneumatic retinopexy in young adults with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
Article in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In young adults with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, pneumatic retinopexy can be a cost-effective and minimally invasive highly effective method in suitable cases. Objectives: To evaluate the role of pneumatic retinopexy in the treatment of young adults with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and the factors that may affect the success of pneumatic retinopexy. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: The study included 67 eyes of 67 patients aged between 21 and 40 who underwent pneumatic retinopexy (PR) between January 2015 and June 2021 for primary RRD. We retrospectively analyzed the prognostic factors that may affect the success of PR, such as preoperative age, best corrected visual acuity, tear site, lens condition, and axial length. Results: PR was successful in 61.2% of the patients, whereas 38.8% required secondary surgery. Between the group that had a single surgery (Group 1) and the group that required secondary surgery (Group 2) the tear location, axial length, and volumes of gases used were statistically different ( Conclusion: Since it is a minimally invasive and cost-effective method that provides rapid visual rehabilitation, it can be considered as first-line therapy in young adults who are suitable for PR.
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.