Pars Plana Vitrectomy With Silicone Oil or Gas Tamponade for Uncomplicated Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with silicone oil compared to gas tamponade for uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to September 2023 for comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of PPV with either silicone oil or gas tamponade in the setting of uncomplicated RRD. Our primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity at the last study observation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of retinal reattachment, retinal thickness, and the incidence of adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies reporting on 491 RRD eyes were included. The mean best-corrected visual acuity at the last study observation was significantly better in the gas tamponade group than in the silicone oil group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.17 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.06, 0.27], P = .002). Rates of primary retinal reattachment were similar between the silicone oil and gas tamponade groups (P = .89). The ganglion cell layer was significantly thinner in the silicone oil group compared to the gas tamponade group (WMD =-3.70 µm, 95% CI = [-5.87, -1.53, P = .0008), as was the inner plexiform layer (WMD = -2.45, 95% CI = [-4.50, -0.40], P = .02) and outer nuclear layer (WMD = -11.74 µm, 95% CI = [-18.39, -5.10], P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: PPV with gas tamponade was associated with better functional outcomes compared to PPV with silicone oil, although both tamponades yielded comparable primary reattachment rates. The absence of randomized trials and the potential for selection bias underscore the importance of further investigation in diverse patient populations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".