Outer Retinal Folds after Pars Plana Vitrectomy vs. Pneumatic Retinopexy for Retinal Detachment Repair: Post hoc analysis from PIVOT.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of postoperative outer retinal folds (ORFs) after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) vs. pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair and to determine the association of ORFs with functional outcomes at 1 year. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with primary macula-off RRD meeting the Pneumatic Retinopexy versus Vitrectomy for the Management of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Outcomes Randomized (PIVOT) trial criteria who were randomly assigned to undergo PPV or PnR. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the PIVOT trial. The incidence and quantitative morphologic features of ORFs were assessed using en face and cross-sectional OCT at 1 month postoperatively by 2 masked graders. The ETDRS letter score was measured and quantitative assessment of metamorphopsia was performed at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with ORFs at 1 month postoperatively among those who underwent PPV versus PnR. The secondary outcomes included the association of ORFs with visual acuity (ETDRS letter score) and metamorphopsia via metamorphopsia charts at 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Of 176 participants enrolled in PIVOT, 88 were macula-off RRDs. Of them, 94.3% (83 of 88) underwent postoperative OCT scans that were gradable at month 1, 93.2% (41 of 44) in the PPV group and 95.5% (42 of 44) in the PnR group. The incidence of ORF formation was 34.1% (14 of 41) in the PPV group and 14.3% (6 of 42) in the PnR group (P = 0.034). The ETDRS letter score at 1 year was 65.7 ± 6.6 letters in patients with ORFs vs. 75.1 ± 1.4 letters in those without ORFs (difference = 9.4 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.5-11.3, P = 0.047). Among patients in the PPV group alone, the mean ETDRS letter score at 1 year in patients with ORFs was 62.8 ± 24.7 letters, compared with 75.4 ± 9.2 letters in patients without ORF formation (difference = 12.6 letters, 95% CI = 0.05-24.59, P = 0.04). Horizontal and vertical metamorphopsia scores were similar in patients with and without ORFs: horizontal, 0.35 ± 0.12 vs. 0.29 ± 0.07 (difference = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.01-0.11, P = 0.69); vertical, 0.25 ± 0.07 vs. 0.29 ± 0.07 (difference = 0.04, 95% CI = 0-0.08, P = 0.60). There was a negative correlation between the closest distance of an ORF from the fovea and vertical metamorphopsia score (r = -0.507, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: There is greater risk of developing ORFs after PPV compared to PnR for primary RRD. Outer retinal folds at 1 month are associated with significantly worse ETDRS visual acuity letter scores at 1 year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".