Scleral Buckling Alone or in Combination with Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair: A Meta-Analysis of 7,212 Eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of scleral buckling (SB) versus combination SB and pars plana vitrectomy (SB + PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify comparative studies published from Jan 2000-Jun 2021 that reported on the efficacy and/or safety following SB and SB + PPV for RRD repair. Final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) represented the primary endpoint, while reattachment rates and ocular adverse events were secondary endpoints. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Across 18 studies, 3912 SB and 3300 SB + PPV eyes were included. Final BCVA was nonsignificantly different between SB and SB + PPV (20/38 vs. 20/66 Snellen; WMD = -0.11 LogMAR; 95% CI: [-0.29, 0.07]; p = 0.23). Primary reattachment rate was similar between procedures (p = 0.74); however, SB alone achieved a significantly higher final reattachment rate (97.40% vs. 93.86%; RR = 1.03; 95% CI: [1.00, 1.06]; p = 0.04). Compared to SB + PPV, SB alone had a significantly lower risk of postoperative macular edema (RR = 0.69; 95% CI: [0.47, 1.00]; p = 0.05) and cataract formation (RR = 0.34; 95% CI: [0.12, 0.96]; p = 0.04). The incidence of macular hole, epiretinal membrane, residual subretinal fluid, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, elevated intraocular pressure, and extraocular muscle dysfunction were similar between SB and SB + PPV. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in final BCVA between SB + PPV and SB alone in RRD. SB alone offers a slightly higher final reattachment rate along with a reduced risk of macular edema and cataract. Primary reattachment rate and the incidence of other complications were similar between the two procedures.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".