ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2024
Outcomes and variables that impact pneumatic retinopexies.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pneumatic retinopexy in the real world: A critical reappraisal of the PIVOT trial.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Modification of the pneumatic retinopexy for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with multiple-quadrant retinal breaks.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of pneumatic retinopexy (PR) in patients undergoing PR as primary treatment for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and analyze the factors associated with success and failure in the studied population.
methodsA retrospective chart review was done of patients with RRD treated with PR as primary management method treated at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai between January 2017 and December 2021. Primary outcome measured success or failure of PR. Secondary outcome measured best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after PR. A separate risk analysis was done to identify and stratify risks associated with success and failure of PR.
resultsA total of 179 eyes from 179 patients were included for final analysis. The 83 patients (46.37%) achieved anatomical reattachment of the retina after primary PR with no need for additional surgery. The 96 patients (53.63%) had a failed primary PR and required a PPV and 6 of them required pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with scleral buckle (SB). In total, 19 cases (10.61%) were done as temporizing pneumatics, 18 (94.74%) underwent PPV, and 1 (5.26%) did not require further intervention. The visual acuities at postoperative month 1 (POM1) for patients who underwent primary PR successfully and for those that underwent PPV after, were 0.58 (20/80) and 1.03 (20/200) respectively. Patients who met Pneumatic Retinopexy Versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial (PIVOT) criteria had a statistically significant decreased risk of primary PR failing (hazard ratio 0.29,
conclusionPR is a good treatment option for treating RRDs in patients that meet PIVOT criteria and can be conducted as a temporizing measure. PIVOT criteria and fovea on status decrease the risk of PR failure.
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.