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
. 2022 Nov 1;42(11):2046-2050.
doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003599.

360 DEGREE ENDOLASER VERSUS FOCAL ENDOLASER IN PRIMARY RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR

Mariam Mathai  1 , Kristen S Godwin  2 , Julio Albarracin  2 , Joshua Levinson  1 , Kevin Broderick  3 , Alexander Melamud  1
Affiliations

360 DEGREE ENDOLASER VERSUS FOCAL ENDOLASER IN PRIMARY RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR

Mariam Mathai et al. Retina. .

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the efficacy of the 360-degree endolaser (360EL) versus focal laser during primary vitrectomy (PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair.

Methods: A single-site retrospective chart review was performed on 241 patients who underwent PPV for primary RRD. Patients were assigned to two groups, PPV with 360EL (n = 183) and PPV without 360EL (n = 59). Only cases where surgeons performed 360EL on all RRDs or surgeons who never perform 360EL on RRDs were included.

Results: The single surgery anatomical success rate in the 360EL group was 90.2% compared with 86.5% with focal laser ( P = 0.619). Epiretinal membrane formation in 360EL group at 1 year was 44.4% versus 37% with focal laser ( P = 0.429). Cystoid macular edema formation within 1 year of surgery was 25.8% in 360EL group versus 11.9% with focal laser ( P = 0.04).

Conclusion: The use of 360EL in PPV for RRD repair does not improve single-surgery anatomical success in routine RRDs when compared with PPV with focal laser.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Correspondence.
    Antaki F, Javidi E, Giguère CÉ, Hammamji K. Antaki F, et al. Retina. 2023 Sep 1;43(9):e53-e55. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003853. Retina. 2023. PMID: 37490754 No abstract available.

References

    1. Sultan ZN, Agorogiannis EI, Iannetta D, et al. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a review of current practice in diagnosis and management. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 2020;5:e000474.
    1. Soekamto C, Chu ER, Johnson DA, et al. Protective role of 360° laser retinopexy in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Ophthalmol 2021;35:215–222.
    1. Bilgin AB, Dogan ME, Aysun B, Apaydın KC. Pars plana vitrectomy with or without intraoperative 360° peripheral endolaser for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treatment. Int Ophthalmol 2019;39:1687–1694.
    1. Weichel ED, Martidis A, Fineman MS, et al. Pars plana vitrectomy versus combined pars plana vitrectomy–scleral buckle for primary repair of pseudophakic retinal detachment. Ophthalmology 2006;113:2033–2040.
    1. Wickham L, Ho-Yen GO, Bunce C, et al. Surgical failure following primary retinal detachment surgery by vitrectomy: risk factors and functional outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:1234–1238.