ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Comparison of perfluorocarbon liquid utilization in endoscopic pars plana vitrectomy and microscopic pars plana vitrectomy during retinal detachment repair: a retrospective review.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRetinal detachment (RD) is a vision threatening condition that often requires surgical intervention. During RD repair, perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) use, such as perfluoro-n-octane (PFO), can be used as a retinal tamponade source. However, PFO use adds additional cost and may lead to complications like inflammatory response. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) can be done the standard method using a surgical-microscope PPV (S-PPV) or with endoscopic PPV (E-PPV) in cases of hazy anterior view. The purpose of this study is to compare PFO use and outcomes between E-PPV and S-PPV for RD repair.
methodsA retrospective chart review of patients undergoing RD repair between August 2017 and July 2023 at a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients were included if they had a minimum of 6-months postoperative visits. Data was collected for patient demographics, visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), procedure details, and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and chi-square analysis. This study was approved by our institutional review board (IRB).
results401 patients met the inclusion criteria with an average age of 59.17 (SD = 14.66). Of those included, 38.15% were female and 61.85% were male. PFO was utilized in 29.18% (N = 117) of cases. Most procedures performed were S-PPV (80.05%, N = 321) with the remaining cases being E-PPV (19.95%, N = 80). PFO was utilized in 38.75% of E-PPV cases, but in only 26.79% of S-PPV cases (p = 0.035). There were some variations in VA and IOP outcomes, with the PFO group generally having worse preoperative visual acuity. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of retinal re-detachment, cystoid macular edema (CME), or epiretinal membrane (ERM) development between any of the groups.
conclusionsIn this study, PFO was used more frequently in those undergoing E-PPV compared to S-PPV. With PFO use, there was no statistically significant difference in re-detachment rate between the E-PPV and S-PPV groups. PFO use may be more beneficial in patients with poor anterior view given its higher utilization rate in E-PPV.
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.