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
. 2021 Nov 11;11(11):CD008350.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub3.

Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments

Dayse F Sena  1 , Raphael Kilian  2 , Su-Hsun Liu  3 , Stanislao Rizzo  4 , Gianni Virgili  5   6
Affiliations

Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments

Dayse F Sena et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

Selection criteria: We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.

Data collection and analysis: After screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane.

Main results: In this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy. Of the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). All three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] -0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence). No study reported data on quality of life or economic measures. Postoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes).

Authors' conclusions: The current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DFS: none.

RK: none.

Su‐Hsun Liu: reports a grant from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA; payment to institution.

SR: none.

GV: none.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
4
4
5
5
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle, Outcome 1: Reattachment of the retina at 6–12 months' follow‐up
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle, Outcome 2: Recurrence of retinal detachment at 6–12 months' follow‐up
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle, Outcome 3: Proportion of participants with best corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle, Outcome 4: Adverse events at 6–24 months' follow‐up
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Morescalchi 2021 {published data only}
    1. Morescalchi F, Russo A, Gandolfo F, Carnazza M, Bahja H, Costagliola C, et al. Pneumatic retinopexy preceded by drainage of subretinal fluid for the treatment of severe bullous retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmologica 2021;99(1):e109-16. [DOI: ] - PubMed
    1. NCT04139746. Pneumatic retinopexy for severe bullous retinal detachment. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04139746 (first received 25 October 2019).
Mulvihill 1996 {published data only}
    1. Mulvihill A, Fulcher T, Datta V, Acheson R. Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckling: a randomised controlled trial. Irish Journal of Medical Science 1996;165(4):274-7. - PubMed
Tornambe 1989 {published data only}
    1. Tornambe PE, Hilton GF, Brinton DA, Flood TP, Green S, Grizzard WS, et al. Pneumatic retinopexy. A two-year follow-up study of the multicenter clinical trial comparing pneumatic retinopexy with scleral buckling. Ophthalmology 1991;98(7):1115-23. - PubMed
    1. Tornambe PE, Hilton GF, Grizzard WS, Hammer ME, Poliner LS, Yarian DL, et al. Pneumatic retinopexy: a two-year randomized controlled follow-up study comparing pneumatic retinopexy with scleral buckling. American Academy of Ophthalmology 1990:123.
    1. Tornambe PE, Hilton GF. Pneumatic retinopexy. A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial comparing pneumatic retinopexy with scleral buckling. The Retinal Detachment Study Group. Ophthalmology 1989;96(6):772-83. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Avitabile 2004 {published data only}
    1. Avitabile T, Bartolotta G, Torrisi B, Reibaldi A. A randomized prospective study of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment cases treated with cryopexy versus frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser-retinopexy during episcleral surgery. Retina 2004;24(6):878-82. - PubMed
Barr 1995 {published data only}
    1. Barr CC. Pneumatic retinopexy and balloon buckles as alternatives to conventional scleral buckling surgery. Seminars in Ophthalmology 1995;10(1):2-8. - PubMed
Figueroa 2000 {published data only}
    1. Figueroa M, Schirru A, Corte MD, Sbordone S, Romano A. Scleral buckling technique without retinopexy for treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2000:123. - PubMed
Gauthier 2017 {published data only}
    1. Gauthier AC, Adelman RA. A quality of life study comparing scleral buckle and pneumatic retinopexy for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Clinical Ophthalmology 2017;11:1069-71. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Hillier 2019 {published data only}
    1. Hillier RJ, Felfeli T, Berger AR, Wong DT, Altomare F, Dai D, et al. The pneumatic retinopexy versus vitrectomy for the management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment outcomes randomized trial (PIVOT). Ophthalmology 2019;126(4):531-9. - PubMed
Hsu 2014 {published data only}
    1. Hsu J, Gerstenblith AT, London NJ, Garg SJ, Spirn MJ, Maguire JI, et al. Effect of topical aqueous suppression on intraocular gas duration after pure perfluoropropane injection in nonvitrectomized eyes with retinal detachment. Retina 2014;34(12):2458-61. - PubMed
Kartasasmita 2016 {published data only}
    1. Kartasasmita A, Sastradiwirja RP, Virgana R, Iskandar E, Sovani I, Panggabean D. Anatomical success of combined scleral buckle and pneumatic retinopexy in primary retinal detachment surgery. Retina-Vitreus 2016;24(4):293-6.
Maia 2007 {published data only}
    1. Maia OO Jr, Takahashi WY, Chizzotti Bonanomi MT, Arantes TE. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a postoperative study of the macula [Descolamento regmatogênico de retina: avaliação pós-operatória da mácula]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2007;70(6):996-1000. - PubMed
Martinez‐Mujica 2018 {published data only}
    1. Martinez-Mujica MT, Retamal J, Gonzalez R. Scleral buckle versus pneumatic retinopexy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Medwave 2018;18(6):e7278. [DOI: ] - PubMed
Massin 1971 {published data only}
    1. Massin M, Dubois-Poulsen A, Damois F. Comparison between 2 methods of treatment of retinal detachment (Advantages of H.A. Lincoff's method). Archives d'Ophtalmologie et Revue Generale d'Ophtalmologie 1971;31(11):793-804. - PubMed
Paulus 2017 {published data only}
    1. Paulus YM, Leung LS, Pilyugina S, Blumenkranz MS. Comparison of pneumatic retinopexy and scleral buckle for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina 2017;48(11):887-93. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Topbas 2013 {published data only}
    1. Topbas S, Gursoy H, Erol N, Usalp Z. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic analysis of macula in cases with successfully repaired macula-off retinal detachment. Retina-Vitreus 2013;21(2):113-8.
Veckeneer 2001 {published data only}
    1. Veckeneer M, Overdam K, Bouwens D, Feron E, Mertens D, Peperkamp E, et al. Randomized clinical trial of cryotherapy versus laser photocoagulation for retinopexy in conventional retinal detachment surgery. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;132(3):343-7. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Betran‐Loustaunau 1997 {published data only}
    1. Betran-Loustaunau MA, Troconis D, Morales-Canton V, Ochoa-Contreras D, Dalma-Weiszhausz 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:ARVO E-Abstract 3156.

Additional references

Algvere 1999
    1. Algvere PV, Jahnberg P, Textorius O. The Swedish Retinal Detachment Register. I. A database for epidemiological and clinical studies. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 1999;237(2):137-44. - PubMed
Bucher 2020
    1. Bucher F, Daniel MC, Böhringer D, Lange C, Reinhard T, Agostini H, et al. Scleral buckling surgery in Germany for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a spirit of the past or current practice? [Eindellende operationen zur behandlung der rhegmatogenen amotio in Deutschland: ein geist der vergangenheit oder gelebte praxis?]. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde 2020;237(6):780-6. - PubMed
Byer 1989
    1. Byer NE. Long-term natural history of lattice degeneration of the retina. Ophthalmology 1989;96(9):1396-401. - 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):1045-50. - PubMed
Deeks 2021
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. 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 [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 9 July 2021. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), accessed prior to 7 October 2021. Available from gradepro.org.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/.
Higgins 2019
    1. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.
Li 2003
    1. Li X, Beijing Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Study Group. Incidence and epidemiological characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in Beijing, China. Ophthalmology 2003;110(12):2413-7. - PubMed
McKenzie 2021
    1. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV. Chapter 9: Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Mitry 2010
    1. Mitry D, Charteris DG, Fleck BW, Campbell H, Singh J. The epidemiology of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: geographical variation and clinical associations. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;94(6):678-84. - PubMed
Moisseiev 2017
    1. Moisseiev E, Yiu G. Retinal detachment in severe myopia. Lancet 2017;389(10074):1133. - PubMed
Muni 2021
    1. Muni RH, Felfeli T, Sadda SR, Juncal VR, Francisconi CLM, Nittala MG, et al. Postoperative Photoreceptor Integrity Following Pneumatic Retinopexy vs Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Retinal Detachment Repair: A Post Hoc Optical Coherence Tomography Analysis From the Pneumatic Retinopexy Versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2021;139:620-627. - PMC - PubMed
Nielsen 2020
    1. Nielsen BR, Alberti M, Bjerrum SS, la Cour M. The incidence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment is increasing. Acta Ophthalmologica 2020;98(6):603-6. - PubMed
Olson 2017
    1. Olson RJ, Braga-Mele R, Chen SH, Miller KM, Pineda R 2nd, Tweeten JP, et al. Cataract in the Adult Eye Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2017;124(2):1-119. - PubMed
Reeves 2018
    1. Reeves MG, Pershing S, Afshar AR. Choice of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair method in US commercially insured and Medicare advantage patients, 2003-2016. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2018;196:82-90. - PubMed
RevMan Web 2021 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager Web (RevMan Web). Version 3.9.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2021. Available at revman.cochrane.org.
Ross 2000
    1. Ross WH, Stockl FA. Visual recovery after retinal detachment. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2000;11(3):191-4. - PubMed
Rowe 1999
    1. Rowe JA, Erie JC, Baratz KH, Hodge DO, Gray DT, Butterfield L, et al. Retinal detachment in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976 through 1995. Ophthalmology 1999;106(1):154-9. - PubMed
Schmidt 2019
    1. Schmidt I, Plange N, Rößler G, Schellhase H, Koutsonas A, Walter P, et al. Long-term clinical results of vitrectomy and scleral buckling in treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Scientific World Journal 2019;2019:5416806. - PMC - PubMed
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
Sultan 2020
    1. Sultan ZN, Agorogiannis EI, Iannetta D, Steel D, Sandinha T. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a review of current practice in diagnosis and management. BMJ Open Ophthalmology 2020;5:e000474. - PMC - PubMed
Williams 2014
    1. Williams PD, Hariprasad SM. Evolving trends in primary retinal detachment repair: microincisional vitrectomy and the role of OCT. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina 2014;45(4):268-72. - PubMed
Yannuzzi 2021
    1. Yannuzzi NA, Li C, Fujino D, Kelly SP, Lum F, Flynn HW Jr, et al. Clinical outcomes of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treated with pneumatic retinopexy. JAMA Ophthalmology 2021;139(8):848-53. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

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. Art. No: CD008350. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ramchand 2010
    1. Ramchand K, Hatef E, Sena DF, Fallano KA, Do DV. Pneumatic retinopexy versus scleral buckle for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 2. Art. No: CD008350. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008350] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types