Clinical outcome of 23g trans-conjunctival pars plana vitrectomy: A prospective comparison of Phaco-Vitrectomy with only vitrectomy in phakic eyes

13Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of combined phacoemulsification with 23G pars plana vitrectomy when compared to pars plana vitrectomy alone in phakic patients. Methods: This study was performed at Al-Ehsan Eye Hospital (tertiary care eye hospital in Lahore, Pakistan) from January 2016 to August 2016. A total of 40 eyes in two equal groups of 20 eyes each, were enrolled in this prospective study. Group-A underwent combined phaco-vitrectomy, whereas Group-B underwent vitrectomy only for various vitreoretinal pathologies. We evaluated the safety of combined surgery, intraoperative and postoperative complications and short term surgical outcome. Results: The most common reason for vitreoretinal intervention was rhegmatogenous retinal detachment followed by vitreous haemorrhage in combined study population. There was statistically significant difference in best corrected visual acuity pre-operatively and post operatively within the groups and between the groups. The most significant immediate post operative observation in Group-A was enhanced anterior chamber inflammation as compared to Group-B, whereas most signification observation in Group-B was development of visually significant cataract (35%) at 6 months follow-up. There was no other significant sequel or complication difference between both groups. Conclusions: Combined phaco-vitrectomy is a safe and effective procedure with minimum complication profile and it avoids the need of subsequent cataract surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tayyab, H., Khan, A. A., & Javaid, R. M. M. (2017). Clinical outcome of 23g trans-conjunctival pars plana vitrectomy: A prospective comparison of Phaco-Vitrectomy with only vitrectomy in phakic eyes. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(5), 1123–1127. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.335.13430

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free