Discussion
While excellent anatomic and functional outcomes can be achieved with PPV, SB and combined PPV/SB,10 11 37 38 there has been a dramatic shift in the paradigm of retinal detachment repair over the last twenty years. The use of primary vitrectomy has grown to become the most commonly selected treatment for the management of RRD, while SB performed alone or as an adjunct to PPV continues to decline in popularity with each generation of newly trained vitreoretinal surgeons.14 39–41 This unidirectional movement is attributed to the rapid evolution of the surgical landscape of vitrectomy, characterised by the improvements in small-gauge instrumentation and wide-angle viewing systems. These technologies have synergistically augmented surgeon confidence and ability to accomplish the fundamental tenets of retinal surgery as exemplified in the literature,21 25–28 and in a previously published single surgeon case series from our institution in which SSAS and FAS were achieved in greater than 95% of eyes with non-complex RRD managed with PPV alone.29
The present dataset reports anatomic and visual outcomes with three different surgical techniques at a single academic institution in which PPV is the most frequently performed operation in the management of retinal detachment, during a period that encompasses the modern era of small gauge instrumentation and wide angle viewing systems. We report an SSAS of 91.7% and FAS of 96.7% in patients with non-complex RRD managed with PPV. Our findings demonstrate thorough and meticulous vitrectomy performed using small-gauge instrumentation and advanced wide-angle viewing systems is highly successful in identifying and treating all retinal breaks. Other recent studies investigating anatomic and visual outcomes with the use of PPV or SB as a primary treatment or adjunct to PPV have provided equivocal results10 16 34 41 42 and often incomplete recommendations,8 10 16 17 43–46 likely because the power and applicability of these studies are limited by a combination of small sample size, non-uniform diagnostic and inclusion criteria, surgeon bias, and often limited follow-up. This current investigation, with its large sample size across multiple surgeons supports the conclusion that primary vitrectomy without adjunctive SB consistently yields excellent outcomes in the treatment of non-complex RRD with various anatomic configurations in the present era of vitreoretinal surgery.
The SPR study published in 2007 remains the latest major prospective randomised controlled trial to investigate differential outcomes in the surgical management of retinal detachment. The SPR study group investigators reported that SB provides superior visual outcomes and similar anatomic outcomes in phakic eyes, and PPV provides similar visual outcomes and superior anatomic outcomes in pseudophakic eyes.15 While the SPR study provided a wealth of critical data and the foundational framework for surgical decision making in the management of RRD, it is imperative to note that its findings and conclusions may no longer be directly applicable to modern vitreoretinal surgery. The SPR study was based on cases performed between 1998 and 2003, which predates the introduction of small gauge cannula-based instrumentation, high speed vitrectomy systems and wide-angle viewing technologies that are commonplace in vitreoretinal surgery today. This clinical trial also retained surgeon’s discretion to perform supplemental SB in patients randomised to the PPV group and found that a scleral buckle was added in greater than 50% of patients undergoing vitrectomy, introducing bias and adding complexity in discerning the outcomes of primary PPV from those of PPV/SB or SB with confidence. The SPR study was furthermore restricted only to patients with moderate-complexity RRD, as this investigation was based on the principle that cases of non-complex RRD with a small number of breaks or limited extent of retinal detachment would unanimously undergo surgical repair with SB or pneumatic retinopexy. These notions reflect the surgical standard of care at that time but are not reflective of the perspectives and practices of the modern era of PPV-dominant vitreoretinal surgery. In fact, a recent survey performed by the American Society of Retina Specialists in 2018 reported that vitreoretinal surgeons perform SB in less than 20% of all RRD cases.[41
Accordingly, our analysis found that primary vitrectomy is the most frequently performed surgery in the repair of non-complex RRD overall at our institution, and also when controlling for lens status, macular detachment, and the number as well as location of retinal breaks. In contrast to the SPR study, the excellent anatomic outcomes and correspondingly favourable visual outcomes in both phakic and pseudophakic eyes managed with vitrectomy alone in the present investigation are likely attributable to the assimilation of modern small-gauge instrumentation and panoramic viewing technologies that have cumulatively enhanced the ability to view, access, and effectively treat peripheral retinal pathology, compared with the PPV systems used at the time of the SPR study. However, SB may be a superior surgical choice in a select subset of patients. Specifically, the interrelated findings that patients in the SB group were significantly younger and less likely to have undergone cataract surgery support the notion that SB is still preferable in younger phakic eyes—in particular, those without pre-existing PVD.
The Primary Retinal Detachment Outcomes Study (PROS) is another retrospective interventional case series investigating surgical outcomes in RRD repair and is the largest recently published study on the subject. Based on an analysis of cases performed in 2015, the investigators report high rates of retinal reapposition in patients managed with SB (91.2%) or PPV/SB (90.2%), but notably report a lower SSAS of 84.2% in patients managed with PPV alone. The precise reason for this discrepancy in anatomic success with primary PPV between the PROS and the present study remains unknown.
Retinal breaks below the clock hours of 3:00 and 9:00 were present in 39.5% of our patients, and we do not report a significant difference in the proportion of cases with inferior breaks between the PPV, SB and PPV/SB groups. Despite that inferior breaks may pose a greater challenge to surgical repair[47 and that supplemental SB may provide added support to the inferior vitreous base,[48 we find vitrectomy still remains the most frequently performed operation in this subset of patients with non-complex RRD. Moreover, the high rates of SSAS (88.9%) and FAS (96.2%) reported in the management of RRD characterised by inferior breaks using primary PPV reinforce our conclusion that small-gauge vitrectomy alone provides excellent anatomic success.
The rationale among some surgeons for performing combined vitrectomy with SB is rooted in the premise that placement of a scleral exoplant reduces vitreous traction in the peripheral retina, and can facilitate the closure of unidentified breaks or secondary breaks that may otherwise precipitate surgical failure.[49–51 In addition to the presence of inferior retinal breaks, greater extent of retinal detachment is sometimes considered an indication for adjunct SB as demonstrated in both PROS and the present investigation. However, even when controlling for the size of retinal detachment or macular detachment status in both phakic and pseudophakic patients, we find that PPV alone continues to yield excellent rates of primary and final surgical anatomic success that are similar to the rates observed in patients managed with PPV/SB.
Unsurprisingly, we find that visual outcomes correspond to excellent anatomic outcomes with PPV in our study population. Similar to the SB and PPV/SB groups, patients managed with primary vitrectomy demonstrated excellent VA at follow-up even when controlling for anatomic features of retinal detachment that are traditionally considered to be more challenging to repair, including macular involvement, the presence of inferior breaks and a larger area of retinal detachment. While comparitive statistical analyses are not presented due to the much smaller number of cases managed with SB or PPV/SB, the favourable visual outcomes reported in cases with a wide variety of anatomic configurations managed with PPV alone suggest that adjunct SB may provide neither added anatomic nor visual benefit.
In interpreting the many findings and conclusions presented herein, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this investigation. In light of its retrospective basis and the non-consecutive selection of cases, this study is inherently subject to selection bias and non-randomisation, as well as a lack of standardisation in methodologies and criteria used to assess patient outcomes. Another pertinent limitation is the notable predominance of PPV in this cohort, which is attributable to vitrectomy being the most commonly selected mode of retinal detachment repair at our institution, and the much smaller number of cases managed with SB or PPV/SB which prevented the investigators from performing robust statistical analyses.
In this context, there are also several unique strengths to this investigation. Primarily, given the complex and variable nature of this condition, it is difficult to recruit an equally large sample size of patients undergoing surgical treatment for participation in a prospective clinical trial. It may furthermore not be feasible to closely follow and monitor such a large cohort of patients for a correspondingly lengthy period of time, as performed in this study. Another strength of this study is that all operations were performed by the same group of surgeons at a single institution that are experienced in performing and teaching all three surgical approaches. While this study was composed entirely of non-complex RRD cases that can be justifiably managed with PPV, SB or PPV/SB, there likely exists some degree of inherent bias in procedure choice based on each surgeon’s training, preferences, and past experiences with each operation. While every effort was made to generate an anatomically comparable cohort during the design of this study, some cases may inevitably have been considered to be more complex which may have influenced the surgeon’s choice of operation. This rationale is supported by the fact that patients managed with SB were significantly younger than those managed with vitrectomy, the median size of RD was greatest in patients managed with PPV/SB, as well as the findings that PPV/SB was performed less often than primary vitrectomy and that silicone oil was used more often in PPV/SB cases which in tandem suggest that adjunct SB may have been performed in more complicated cases of non-complex RRD. We further acknowledge that retinal specialists choose the operation to be performed on a case-by-case basis at the time of evaluation of each patient, and that surgical preferences and practices may change. Surgical selection bias was further minimised as data collection and analysis were performed without prior knowledge of surgeon, surgery type, or anatomic or visual outcome.
In conclusion, PPV has become the most commonly selected and most frequently performed treatment in the surgical management of non-complex RRD.9 14 37 The trend away from SB and towards PPV has been driven by the advent of small-gauge instrumentation and wide-angle viewing systems. Over the past 20 years, these technologies have greatly enhanced the ability to identify, access, and treat retinal pathology, such that PPV in the present era is the ideal treatment choice for an expanding number of indications in the surgical management of retinal detachment.40 42 SB and PPV/SB are excellent surgical options, and remain invaluable in the current paradigm of retinal detachment repair. Given the differences in sample size between the three surgical groups, the goal of this investigation was not to directly compare outcomes between PPV, SB, and PPV/SB. Rather, our large retrospective study provides a wealth of data exemplifying small-gauge PPV alone is capable of providing high rates of anatomic and functional success in primary, non-complex RRD. Given the excellent single operation and FAS rates presented herein, we maintain that a minimalist approach with vitrectomy alone is ideal as it minimises cost, operation time and the potential for added patient morbidity without compromising visual outcomes in the surgical management of non-complex RRD.