FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W34787397> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W34787397 endingPage "1733" @default.
• W34787397 startingPage "1724" @default.
• W34787397 abstract "Purpose To compare the success of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus scleral buckle (SB) in the management of uncomplicated pseudophakic retinal detachments (RDs). Design Meta-analysis of published studies from 1966 to 2004 regarding surgical treatment of pseudophakic RDs. Participants Two thousand two hundred thirty eyes: 1579 operated by SB, 457 by PPV, and 194 by the combined method of PPV and SB. Methods We compared reattachment and functional success rates after 3 commonly practiced surgical interventions for pseudophakic RDs: PPV, SB, and the combined method. Twelve hundred thirty-two articles were retrieved from Medline and by cross-reference searches. Articles with sufficient data on preoperative evaluation, applied surgical technique, and anatomical and functional success rates were included in this analysis. Articles regarding complex pseudophakic RDs, treatment by laser or pneumatic retinopexy, studies with indistinguishable treatment outcomes from phakic and pseudophakic RDs, or reviews without original data were excluded. Main Outcome Measures Anatomical success rates after initial surgical intervention and after reoperation(s) for primary failures, and best or final visual outcome at the end of follow-up. Results Of 1232 papers, 29 matched inclusion criteria. After controlling for variation between study characteristics, PPV and the combined method resulted in higher initial reattachment rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–2.68, and OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.57–7.97, respectively) as compared with SB. The differences between the procedures persisted for final reattachment outcome despite reoperation for primary failures. Final visual outcome also was found to depend on the choice of primary surgical intervention. After controlling for differences in the study characteristics, the probability of visual improvement was higher after PPV (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.58–3.46) or the combined method (OR, 11.52; 95% CI, 4.42–30.04) as compared with SB. Conclusions A meta-analysis of published literature implies that PPV with or without SB is more likely to achieve a favorable anatomical and visual outcome than conventional SB alone in uncomplicated pseudophakic RDs. However, the inherent limitations of differing study protocols, quality of included studies, and publication bias in a pooled analysis should be recognized. To compare the success of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) versus scleral buckle (SB) in the management of uncomplicated pseudophakic retinal detachments (RDs). Meta-analysis of published studies from 1966 to 2004 regarding surgical treatment of pseudophakic RDs. Two thousand two hundred thirty eyes: 1579 operated by SB, 457 by PPV, and 194 by the combined method of PPV and SB. We compared reattachment and functional success rates after 3 commonly practiced surgical interventions for pseudophakic RDs: PPV, SB, and the combined method. Twelve hundred thirty-two articles were retrieved from Medline and by cross-reference searches. Articles with sufficient data on preoperative evaluation, applied surgical technique, and anatomical and functional success rates were included in this analysis. Articles regarding complex pseudophakic RDs, treatment by laser or pneumatic retinopexy, studies with indistinguishable treatment outcomes from phakic and pseudophakic RDs, or reviews without original data were excluded. Anatomical success rates after initial surgical intervention and after reoperation(s) for primary failures, and best or final visual outcome at the end of follow-up. Of 1232 papers, 29 matched inclusion criteria. After controlling for variation between study characteristics, PPV and the combined method resulted in higher initial reattachment rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–2.68, and OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.57–7.97, respectively) as compared with SB. The differences between the procedures persisted for final reattachment outcome despite reoperation for primary failures. Final visual outcome also was found to depend on the choice of primary surgical intervention. After controlling for differences in the study characteristics, the probability of visual improvement was higher after PPV (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.58–3.46) or the combined method (OR, 11.52; 95% CI, 4.42–30.04) as compared with SB. A meta-analysis of published literature implies that PPV with or without SB is more likely to achieve a favorable anatomical and visual outcome than conventional SB alone in uncomplicated pseudophakic RDs. However, the inherent limitations of differing study protocols, quality of included studies, and publication bias in a pooled analysis should be recognized." @default.
• W34787397 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W34787397 creator A5025914595 @default.
• W34787397 creator A5046350290 @default.
• W34787397 creator A5055739708 @default.
• W34787397 creator A5067288250 @default.
• W34787397 creator A5081519357 @default.
• W34787397 date "2006-10-01" @default.
• W34787397 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W34787397 title "Surgical Management of Pseudophakic Retinal Detachments" @default.
• W34787397 cites W1500097533 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1571149542 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1585018028 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1872613394 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1941128778 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1965959343 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1974215249 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1977374892 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1982974438 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1984267934 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1984300615 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1992698080 @default.
• W34787397 cites W1993906061 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2005076208 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2008653608 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2025145793 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2025187912 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2034457182 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2036510292 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2037279156 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2041042049 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2042566365 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2043354115 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2044800096 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2047396284 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2054415810 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2064623688 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2067684809 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2069981262 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2080938866 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2081800175 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2107874799 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2115055364 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2135588660 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2271739472 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2283261716 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2413578632 @default.
• W34787397 cites W2777639761 @default.
• W34787397 cites W3025198054 @default.
• W34787397 cites W4255049520 @default.
• W34787397 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.044" @default.
• W34787397 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17011954" @default.
• W34787397 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W34787397 type Work @default.
• W34787397 sameAs 34787397 @default.
• W34787397 citedByCount "87" @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972012 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972013 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972014 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972015 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972016 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972017 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972018 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972019 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972020 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972021 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972022 @default.
• W34787397 countsByYear W347873972023 @default.
• W34787397 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W34787397 hasAuthorship W34787397A5025914595 @default.
• W34787397 hasAuthorship W34787397A5046350290 @default.
• W34787397 hasAuthorship W34787397A5055739708 @default.
• W34787397 hasAuthorship W34787397A5067288250 @default.
• W34787397 hasAuthorship W34787397A5081519357 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2777063560 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2778257484 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2779694073 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2780428090 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2780827179 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C2781242345 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W34787397 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C118487528 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C126322002 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C141071460 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C156957248 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2777063560 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2778257484 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2779694073 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2780428090 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2780827179 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C2781242345 @default.
• W34787397 hasConceptScore W34787397C44249647 @default.

• next