Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Mar 8;3(3):CD009562.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009562.pub2.

Pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckling for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments

Ljubo Znaor  1 , Aleksej Medic, Susanne Binder, Ana Vucinovic, Josipa Marin Lovric, Livia Puljak
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckling for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments

Ljubo Znaor et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium. It is caused by retinal tears, which let fluid pass from the vitreous cavity to the subretinal space. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckling surgery and pneumatic retinopexy are three accepted management strategies whose efficacy remains controversial. Pneumatic retinopexy is considered in a separate Cochrane Review.

Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of PPV versus scleral buckling for the treatment of simple RRD (primary RRD of any extension with up to two clock hours large break(s) regardless of their anterior/posterior localisation) in people with (phakia) or without (aphakia) a natural lens in the eye, or with an artificial lens (pseudophakia). A secondary objective was to assess any data on economic and quality-of-life measures.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 5 December 2018.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPV versus scleral buckling surgery with at least three months of follow-up.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently extracted the data and study characteristics from the studies identified as eligible after initial screening. We considered the following outcomes: primary retinal reattachment, postoperative visual acuity, final anatomical success, recurrence of retinal detachment, number of interventions needed to achieve final anatomical success, quality of life and adverse effects. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

Main results: This review included 10 RCTs (1307 eyes of 1307 participants) from Europe, India, Iran, Japan and Mexico, which compared PPV and scleral buckling for RRD repair. Two of these 10 studies compared PPV combined with scleral buckling with scleral buckling alone (54 participants). All studies were high or unclear risk of bias on at least one domain. Five studies were funded by non-commercial sources, while the other five studies did not report source of funding.There was little or no difference in the proportion of participants who achieved retinal reattachment at least 3 months after the operation in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98 to 1.16; 9 RCTs, 1261 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 67 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal reattachment by 3 to 12 months. Treatment with PPV may result in 4 more people with retinal reattachment in every 100 people treated (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 fewer to 11 more).There was no evidence of any important difference in postoperative visual acuity between participants in the PPV group compared to those in the scleral buckling group (mean difference (MD) 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.10, 6 RCTs, 1138 participants, low-certainty evidence).There was little or no difference in final anatomical success between participants in the PPV group and scleral buckling group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04, 9 RCTs, 1235 participants, low-certainty evidence). There were 94 out of 100 people treated with control (scleral buckling) that achieved final anatomical success compared to 96 out of 100 in the PPV group.Retinal redetachment was reported in fewer participants in the PPV group compared to the scleral buckling group (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, 9 RCTs, 1320 participants, low-certainty evidence). Approximately 28 in every 100 people treated with scleral buckling had retinal detachment by 3 to 36 months. Treatment with PPV may result in seven fewer people with retinal detachment in every 100 people treated (95% CI 1 to 11 fewer).Participants treated with PPV on average needed fewer interventions to achieve final anatomical success but the difference was small and data were skewed (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.06, 2 RCTs, 682 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence on quality of life suggested that more people in the PPV group were "satisfied with vision" compared with the scleral buckling group (RR 6.22, 95% CI 0.88 to 44.09, 1 RCT, 32 participants).All included studies reported adverse effects, however, it was not always clear whether they were reported as number of participants or number of adverse effects. Cataract development or progression was more prevalent in the PPV group (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.01), choroidal detachment was more prevalent in the scleral buckling group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) and new/iatrogenic breaks were observed only in the PPV group (RR 8.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 35.21). Estimates of the relative frequency of other adverse effects, including postoperative proliferative vitreoretinopathy, postoperative increase in intraocular pressure, development of cystoid macular oedema, macular pucker and strabismus were imprecise. Evidence for adverse effects was low-certainty evidence.

Authors' conclusions: Low- or very low-certainty evidence indicates that there may be little or no difference between PPV and scleral buckling in terms of primary success rate, visual acuity gain and final anatomical success in treating primary RRD. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be less retinal redetachment in the PPV group. Some adverse events appeared to be more common in the PPV group, such as cataract progression and new iatrogenic breaks, whereas others were more commonly seen in the scleral buckling group such as choroidal detachment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ljubo Znaor: none known Aleksej Medic: none known Susanne Binder: none known Ana Vucinovic: none known Josipa Marin Lovric: none known Livia Puljak: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
4
4
Forest plot of comparison 1. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) vs scleral buckling, outcome: 1.1 primary retinal reattachment rate at least 3 months after operation
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) vs scleral buckling, outcome: 1.8 Adverse effects.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009562

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Ahmadieh 2005 {published data only}
    1. Ahmadieh H, Moradian S, Faghihi H, Parvaresh MM, Ghanbari H, Mehryar M, et al. Anatomic and visual outcomes of scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment: six‐month follow‐up results of a single operation‐‐report no. 1. Ophthalmology 2005;112(8):1421‐9. - PubMed
    1. Ahmadieh H, Moradian S, Golestan B. Scleral buckling vs. primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment: a multicenter clinical trial (Report # 2). American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2005:177. - PubMed
    1. Ahmadieh H, Moradian S, Habibabadi HF, Parvaresh MM, Ghanbar H, Heidari E, et al. Visual and anatomic outcome of scleral buckling vs primary vitrectomy in aphakic and pseudophakic retinal detachment. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2003:151.
Azad 2007 {published data only}
    1. Azad RV, Chanana B, Sharma YR, Vohra R. Primary vitrectomy versus conventional retinal detachment surgery in phakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2007;85(5):540‐5. - PubMed
Brazitikos 2005 {published data only}
    1. Brazitikos P, Androudi S, Christen WG, Stangos N. Primary pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckle surgery for the treatment of pseudophakic retinal detachment: a randomized clinical trial. Retina 2005;25(8):957‐64. - PubMed
    1. Brazitikos P, Androudi SN, Christen W, Stangos N. Pars plana vitrectomy vs scleral buckle for primary rhegmatogenous pseudophakic retinal detachment: a randomized clinical trial. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2003:151.
Heimann 2007 phakic {published data only}
    1. Feltgen N, Heimann H, Hoerauf H, Walter P, Hilgers RD, Heussen N, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR study): risk assessment of anatomical outcome. SPR study report no. 7. Acta Ophthalmologica 2013;91(3):282‐7. - PubMed
    1. Heimann H, Bartz‐Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Hilgers RD, Nodov M, Weiss C, et al. Results of the scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR Study). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2006; Vol. 47, issue 13:47 ARVO E‐abstract 2690.
    1. Heimann H, Bartz‐Scmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster M, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Ophthalmology 2007;114(12):2142‐54. - PubMed
    1. Heimann H, Hellmich M, Bornfeld N, Bartz‐Schmidt KU, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (SPR Study): design issues and implications. SPR Study report no. 1. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2001;239(8):567‐74. - PubMed
    1. Heussen N, Feltgen N, Walter P, Hoerauf H, Hilgers RD, Heimann H, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR Study): predictive factors for functional outcome. Study report no. 6. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2011;249(8):1129‐36. - PubMed
Heimann 2007 pseudophakic {published data only}
    1. Feltgen N, Heimann H, Hoerauf H, Walter P, Hilgers RD, Heussen N, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR study): risk assessment of anatomical outcome. SPR study report no. 7. Acta Ophthalmologica 2013;91(3):282‐7. - PubMed
    1. Heimann H, Bartz‐Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Hilgers RD, Nodov M, Weiss C, et al. Results of the scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR Study). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2006; Vol. 47:ARVO E‐abstract 2690.
    1. Heimann H, Bartz‐Scmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster M, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Ophthalmology 2007;114(12):2142‐54. - PubMed
    1. Heimann H, Hellmich M, Bornfeld N, Bartz‐Schmidt KU, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (SPR Study): design issues and implications. SPR Study report no. 1. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2001;239(8):567‐74. - PubMed
    1. Heussen N, Feltgen N, Walter P, Hoerauf H, Hilgers RD, Heimann H, et al. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study (SPR Study): predictive factors for functional outcome. Study report no. 6. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2011;249(8):1129‐36. - PubMed
Koriyama 2007 {published data only}
    1. Koriyama M, Nishimura T, Matsubara T, Taomoto M, Takahashi K, Matsumura M. Prospective study comparing the effectiveness of scleral buckling to vitreous surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;51(5):360‐7. - PubMed
Lopez‐Bolanos 2003 {published data only}
    1. López Bolaños A, González Preciado J, Graue Wiechers FA. Scleral buckling vs vitrectomy with scleral indentation in the primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with no apparent injuries [Indentación escleral vs vitrectomía con indentación escleral en el desprendimiento de retina regmatógeno primario sin lesiones aparentes]. Revista Mexicana de Oftalmología 2003;77(1):19‐23.
Martinez‐Jardon 2002 {published data only}
    1. Martinez‐Jardon S, Morales‐Canton V, Magdalenic R, Sinisterra J, Araya‐Muñoz C, Quiroz‐Mercado H. Pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2002; Vol. 43, issue 13:ARVO E‐abstract 619.
Sharma 2005 {published data only}
    1. Sharma YR, Karunanithi S, Azad RV, Vohra R, Pal N, Singh DV, et al. Functional and anatomic outcome of scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2005;83(3):293‐7. - PubMed
Tewari 2003 {published data only}
    1. Tewari HK, Kedar S, Kumar A, Garg SP, Verma LK. Comparison of scleral buckling with combined scleral buckling and pars plana vitrectomy in the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with unseen retinal breaks. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2003;31(5):403‐7. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Betran‐Loustaunau 1997 {published data only}
    1. Beltran Loustaunau, MA, Troconis D, Morales Canton V, Ochoa Contreras D, Dalma Weisdhausz J, Jimenez Sierra JM, et al. Comparative study of vitrectomy, pneumatic retinopexy, and scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1997;38:S673.
Gungel 2012 {published data only}
    1. Güngel H, Paşaoǧlu I, Osmanbaşoǧlu OA, Karaman S. Primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: scleral buckling and/or pars plana vitrectomy, properties of vitreous base and retinal tears. Retina‐Vitreus 2012;20:13‐21.
Romano 2011 {published data only}
    1. Romano MR, Angi M, Valldeperas X, Costagliola C, Vinciguerra P. Twenty‐three‐gauge pars plana vitrectomy, Densiron‐68, and 360° endolaser versus combined 20‐gauge pars plana vitrectomy, scleral buckle, and SF6 for pseudophakic retinal detachment with inferior retinal breaks. Retina 2011;31(4):686–91. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

ISRCTN95808249 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN95808249. Releasable scleral buckling is recommend for phakic primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment patients. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN95808249 (first received 12 September 2017).

Additional references

AAO 1990
    1. American Academy of Ophthalmology. The repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1990;97(11):1562‐72. - PubMed
Ah‐Fat 1999
    1. Ah‐Fat FG, Sharma MC, Majid MA, McGalliard JN, Wong D. Trends in vitreoretinal surgery at a tertiary referral centre: 1987 to 1996. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1999;83(4):396‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Benson 1999
    1. Benson WE, Chan P, Sharma S, Snyder WB, Bloome MA, Birch DG. Current popularity of pneumatic retinopexy. Retina 1999;19(3):238‐41. - PubMed
Burton 1982
    1. Burton TC. Recovery of visual acuity after retinal detachment involving the macula. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 1982;80:475‐97. - PMC - PubMed
Byer 1998
    1. Byer NE. What happens to untreated asymptomatic retinal breaks, and are they affected by posterior vitreous detachment?. Ophthalmology 1998;105(6):1045‐9. - PubMed
Deeks 2017
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors) on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Gariano 2004
    1. Gariano RF, Kim CH. Evaluation and management of suspected retinal detachment. American Family Physician 2004;69(7):1691‐8. - PubMed
Ghazi 2002
    1. Ghazi NG, Green WR. Pathology and pathogenesis of retinal detachment. Eye 2002;16(4):411‐21. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 20 March 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Green 2001
    1. Green WR, Sebag J. Vitreoretinal interface. In: Ryan SJ, Wilkinson CP editor(s). Retina. 3rd Edition. Vol. 3, St Louis: Mosby, 2001:1882‐960.
Haimann 1982
    1. Haimann MH, Burton TC, Brown CK. Epidemiology of retinal detachment. Archives of Ophthalmology 1982;100(2):289‐92. - PubMed
Hatef 2015
    1. Hatef E, Sena DF, Fallano KA, Crews J, Do DV. Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Heimann 2001
    1. Heimann H, Hellmich M, Bornfeld N, Bartz‐Schmidt KU, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (SPR Study): design issues and implications. SPR Study report no. 1. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2001;239(8):567‐74. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Jelicic Kadic 2016
    1. Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S, Sapunar D, Puljak L. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;74:119‐23. - PubMed
Machemer 1971
    1. Machemer R, Buettner H, Norton EW, Parel JM. Vitrectomy: a pars plana approach. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology 1971;75(4):813‐20. - PubMed
Machemer 1995
    1. Machemer R. Reminiscences after 25 years of pars plana vitrectomy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1995;119(4):505‐10. - PubMed
Mangione 2001
    1. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25‐item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology 2001;119(7):1050‐8. - PubMed
Minihan 2001
    1. Minihan M, Tanner V, Williamson TH. Primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: 20 years of change. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85(5):546‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Plot Digitizer 2001 [Computer program]
    1. SourceForge. Plot Digitizer. Version accessed 2 July 2017. SourceForge, 2001.
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Schünemann 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, (editors). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updated October 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available from gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
Sodhi 2008
    1. Sodhi A, Leung LS, Do DV, Gower EW, Schein OD, Handa JT. Recent trends in the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Survey of Ophthalmology 2008;53(1):50‐67. - PubMed
Steel 2014
    1. Steel D. Retinal detachment. Clinical Evidence 2014;03:710. - PMC - PubMed
Sterne 2017
    1. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D, Boutron I (editors). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Tornquist 1987
    1. Tornquist R, Stenkula S, Tornquist P. Retinal detachment. A study of a population‐based patient material in Sweden 1971‐1981. I. Epidemiology. Acta Ophthalmologica 1987;65(2):213‐22. - PubMed
Wilkes 1982
    1. Wilkes SR, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Robertson DM, O'Fallon WM. The incidence of retinal detachment in Rochester, Minnesota, 1970‐1978. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1982;94(5):670‐3. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Znaor 2012
    1. Znaor L, Medic A, Marin J, Binder S, Lukic I, George J. Pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009562] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms