ReviewCureus2025
Pneumatic Retinopexy for the Management of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Pneumatic retinopexy in the real world: A critical reappraisal of the PIVOT trial.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) is a minimally invasive, office-based procedure for the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in selected patients. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is another common surgical approach for RRD repair, as well as for various other retinal pathologies. PnR is associated with superior functional outcomes, particularly best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and metamorphopsia, along with lower rates of cataract progression compared to PPV. This narrative review compares the two techniques, explaining these outcomes. We performed a literature search using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify articles comparing PnR to PPV. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in the English language within the last 10 years, were included. PnR is associated with lower rates of metamorphopsia than PPV due to reduced retinal displacement and better preservation of photoreceptor integrity. Additionally, factors such as oxygen and light toxicity, aging, lens touch, and tamponade agents contribute to more frequent cataract development following PPV than PnR. Although the primary reattachment rate of PnR is lower than that of PPV, the final reattachment rate is similar. Despite this, BCVA appears to be superior with PnR due to PPV's stronger association with retinal displacement, outer retinal folds, and discontinuity of outer retinal layers. While PPV is a commonly performed procedure for RRD repair, PnR offers superior functional visual outcomes and a lower risk of cataract progression. Future research, particularly larger RCTs with longer follow-ups, should focus on the quality of vision rather than solely on anatomical success.
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.