Persistent subfoveal fluid in pneumatic retinopexy versus pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: posthoc analysis of the PIVOT randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of persistent subfoveal fluid (PSFF) in pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) versus pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair and to determine its association with functional outcomes. METHODS: Posthoc analysis of the PIVOT randomised trial. Eyes with gradable en face and cross-sectional spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scans at 1-2 months postoperatively were included. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with PSFF following PnR versus PPV at 1-2 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included association of PSFF with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score at 3, 6 and 12 months and metamorphopsia score (MCHARTs) at 12 months. RESULTS: Of 176 participants enrolled in PIVOT, 158 (89.8%) had gradable SD-OCT scans. Intergrader agreement was 0.870 (Cohen's kappa). The incidence of PSFF was 16% (13/81) following PnR and 10.4% (8/77) following PPV (p=0.298; OR=1.65, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.23). Median ETDRS score at 3 months postoperatively between eyes with and without PSFF was 71 (IQR=58-78) and 78 (IQR=70-84), respectively (difference=7 letters, p=0.037), with no significant difference at subsequent 6-month and 12-month visits. Median metamorphopsia scores in patients with versus without PSFF were: horizontal: 0.1 (IQR=0-0.3) vs 0 (IQR=0-0.2) (difference=0.1, p=0.228) and vertical: 0.25 (IQR=0-0.4) vs 0 (IQR=0-0.2) (difference=0.25, p=0.148), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of PSFF in eyes undergoing PnR versus PPV for RRD. The presence of PSFF at 1-2 months postoperatively was associated with worse ETDRS letter score at 3 months, but there was no difference at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01639209.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".