BACKGROUND: Pneumatic retinopexy (PnR) was proposed as an alternative to pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in certain circumstances. PnR is an outpatient procedure and more cost-effective. However, its benefits should be judged alongside its success rate and adverse events. Herein, we compare the efficacy and safety of PnR and PPV for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. Observational and interventional studies comparing the efficacy and safety of PnR and PPV were included. The outcomes were the success rate of the treatment, improvement in visual acuity, and adverse event rates. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the lens and macula status. Eleven articles were eligible to enter our study; these consisted of 11,346 patients with a mean age of 74.1.
RESULTS: PnR was superior to PPV in terms of retinal displacement, photoreceptor integrity, visual function, and vertical metamorphopsia scores. In the meta-analysis, PPV showed higher a reattachment rate than PnR (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.25-5.11). Subgroup analysis showed that the advantage of PPV over PnR was more pronounced in studies with fewer phakic eyes, more macula-on patients, and in cases with primary PnR failure. While PnR patients had better pre-op (SMD = - 0.58, 95% CI = - 1.16 to 0.00) and post-op (SMD = - 0.45, 95% CI = - 0.60 to - 0.30) LogMAR, the improvement in visual acuity after surgery was higher in PPV patients (SMD = 0.49, 95% CI = - 0.15 to 1.13).
CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of PnR was higher in studies published after 2015 compared to previous studies (82% vs. 59%). Cataract formation and surgery were significantly higher in the PPV arm, while the occurrence of new retinal tears was more frequent in the PnR group. PnR can be used as the primary procedure for RRD repair in selected cases. However, we propose some modifications to the PIVOT criteria, e.g., the exclusion of cases presenting with several risk factors of poor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The evolution of present surgical techniques for reattaching a primary retinal detachment will be reviewed starting from 1929, and the present techniques analyzed in regard to their morbidity, reoperation, and long-term visual function.
METHODS: Literature of retinal detachment operations during the past 80 years is reviewed, of which the author has first-hand experience during the past 40 years. There had been a change from surgery of the entire detachment to a surgery limited to the retinal break and a change from extraocular to intraocular surgery.
RESULTS: The four major operations for repair of a primary retinal detachment in use at the beginning of the 21st century, have still one thing in common for sustained reattachment: to find and close the break that caused the primary retinal detachment and that would cause a redetachment, if not sealed completely. This is independent of whether the surgery is limited to the break or extends over the entire detachment and the same is true whether the surgery is performed as an extraocular or intraocular procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: To find and close sufficiently the break in a primary retinal detachment has accompanied the efforts of retinal detachment surgeons during the past 80 years. This is still the premise for sustained reattachment. However, today four postulates have to be fulfilled: (1) retinal reattachment with the first operation; (2) the procedure should have a minimum of morbidity; (3) the procedure should not harbor secondary complications jeopardizing regained visual acuity; and (4) the procedure should be performed on a small budget with local anesthesia.