Supplemental Scleral Buckle for the Management of Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment by Pars Plana Vitrectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present review aimed to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with and without a supplementary scleral buckle (SB) for management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify RCTs in English that compared PPV with and without supplemental SB. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We present risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 6 RCTs involving 705 eyes. Primary reattachment (6 studies, 345 eyes PPV, 324 eyes PPV + SB; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.06, I2 = 0%, p = 0.78) and final anatomic success rates (4 studies, 272 eyes PPV, 267 eyes PPV + SB; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02, I2 = 0%, p = 0.89) were similar between the 2 groups. Postoperative visual acuity improvement (5 studies, 244 eyes PPV, 222 eyes PPV + SB; MD 6.09 letters, 95% CI -0.47-12.64, I2 = 69%, p = 0.07) and frequency of adverse events (6 studies, 1,294 observations PPV, 1,221 observations PPV + SB; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-1.01, I2 = 25%, p = 0.06) likewise did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence from RCTs did not demonstrate a benefit in placement of a supplemental SB during vitrectomy for management of RRD in the current analysis. Additional high-quality trials are needed to provide more precise estimates of the effect.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".