Face-down positioning or posturing after pars plana vitrectomy for macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachments.

backgroundA macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is one of the most common ophthalmic surgical emergencies and causes significant visual morbidity. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with gas tamponade is often performed to repair primary macula-involving RRDs with a high rate of anatomical retinal reattachment. It has been advocated by some ophthalmologists that face-down positioning after PPV and gas tamponade helps reduce postoperative retinal displacement. Retinal displacement can cause metamorphopsia and binocular diplopia.

objectivesThe primary objective of this review is to determine whether face-down positioning reduces the risk of retinal displacement following PPV and gas tamponade for primary macula-involving RRDs. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 28 November 2022), Embase.com (January 1947 to 28 November 2022), PubMed (1948 to 28 November 2022), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (1982 to 28 November 2022), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which face-down positioning was compared with no positioning or another form of positioning following PPV and gas tamponade for primary macula-involving RRDs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for the prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe identified three RCTs (369 eyes of 368 participants) that met the eligibility criteria. Two RCTs provided data on postoperative retinal displacement, one reported on postoperative distortion and quality of life outcomes, two on postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in logMAR, and two on postoperative ocular adverse events such as outer retinal folds. Study characteristics and risk of bias All the trials involved predominantly male participants (range: 68% to 72%). Only one trial provided race and ethnicity information, was registered on a trial registry, and reported funding sources. Using the RoB 2 tool, we assessed the risk of bias for proportion of eyes with retinal displacement, mean change in visual acuity, objective distortion scores, quality of life assessments, and ocular adverse events, with most domains judged to be at low risk of bias. Findings Immediate face-down positioning may result in a lower proportion of participants with postoperative retinal displacement compared with support-the-break positioning at six months (risk ratio [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.99; 1 RCT; 239 eyes of 239 participants; very low certainty evidence). One study found no evidence of a difference in BCVA at three months when comparing postoperative face-up with face-down positioning with or without perfluorocarbon liquid (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggests that immediate face-down positioning after PPV and gas tamponade may result in a reduction in postoperative retinal displacement, outer retinal folds, and binocular diplopia, but may increase the chance of postoperative raised intraocular pressure compared with support-the-break positioning at six months. We identified two ongoing trials that compare face-down positioning with face-up positioning following PPV and gas tamponade in participants with primary macula-involving RRDs, whose results may provide relevant evidence for our stated objectives. Future trials should be rigorously designed, and investigators should analyze outcome data appropriately and report adequate information to provide evidence of high certainty. Quality of life and patient preferences should be examined in addition to clinical and adverse event outcomes.