360 Degree Endolaser Versus Focal Endolaser in Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the efficacy of the 360-degree endolaser (360EL) versus focal laser during primary vitrectomy (PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair.Methods: A single-site retrospective chart review was performed on 241 patients who underwent PPV for primary RRD. Patients were assigned to two groups, PPV with 360EL (n = 183) and PPV without 360EL (n = 59). Only cases where surgeons performed 360EL on all RRDs or surgeons who never perform 360EL on RRDs were included.Results: The single surgery anatomical success rate in the 360EL group was 90.2% compared with 86.5% with focal laser (P = 0.619). Epiretinal membrane formation in 360EL group at 1 year was 44.4% versus 37% with focal laser (P = 0.429). Cystoid macular edema formation within 1 year of surgery was 25.8% in 360EL group versus 11.9% with focal laser (P = 0.04). Conclusion:The use of 360EL in PPV for RRD repair does not improve single-surgery anatomical success in routine RRDs when compared with PPV with focal laser.

Reply

“…In summary, our goal of this study was to contribute additional evidence to a topic that lacks a clear consensus in the literature by providing a consecutive case series of patients as uninfluenced by surgical bias as we could in a retrospective setting. We thank Hammamji et al 1 for their interest in our study and for sharing their knowledgeable comments. Our team is grateful for the opportunity to have been able to contribute to the literature regarding this controversial topic.…”

Correspondence

“…We read with great interest the recent publication by Mathai et al 1 titled “360-Degree Endolaser Versus Focal Endolaser In Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair.” The authors report no difference in single-surgery anatomical success (SSAS) rate in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with localized intraoperative laser retinopexy (ILR) versus 360° ILR. The authors found that the SSAS rate was 86.5% for the localized ILR group (59 patients) compared with 90.2% for the 360° ILR group (183 patients).…”