Evaluation of Pars Plana Vitrectomy With and Without Supplemental Scleral Buckle for the Repair of Rhegmatogenous Detachment Due to Inferior Retinal Breaks: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this systematic review, the efficacy of scleral buckle (SB) with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was compared to PPV alone in eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) due to inferior retinal breaks (IRB). Measured outcomes included final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomic success, and complication rates in randomized controlled trials and observational studies from 2000 to 2022. Among four studies (696 eyes), three studies demonstrated no significant difference between PPV and PPV/SB for final BCVA, whereas one study reported better BCVA with added SB. PPV/SB yielded comparable single-surgery anatomical success (SSAS) and final anatomical success (FAS) in three studies relative to PPV alone ( P < 0.05); however, one study reported better SSAS with added SB. Stratifying by lens status revealed a SSAS benefit with PPV/SB in phakic eyes ( P = 0.046). No significant difference was seen in complication rates. In conclusion, PPV and PPV/SB were associated with similar functional outcomes and risk profile, whereas SSAS may be improved with PPV/SB in phakic eyes with RRD due to IRB. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2025;56:37–45.]
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".