Comments on: Chronopoulos and colleaguesPneumatic retinopexy--a critical re-appraisal

Abstract

We read with interest the paper entitled “Pneumatic retinopexy - a critical re-appraisal.”1 In their work, Chronopoulos and coworkers did a notable and excellent job in reviewing articles concerning pneumatic retinopexy (PR) results and complications, as well as costs, advantages and disadvantages, also comparing PR to scleral buckle (SB) and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for the treatment of selected cases of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs). They concluded that “PR should be rarely performed, reserved for appropriate RRDs with anterior breaks in the superior quadrants and no or minimal PVR [proliferative vitreoretinopathy] when SB or PPV is not possible.” They also state that “PR too often involves multiple procedures that subject the patient to a prolonged period of disability and stress” and that “PR has a higher rate of subsequent reoperation and PVR than SB or PPV for simple, good prognosis RRDs.” We agree with them when they underscore the lower single operation success (SOS) that PR has compared to SB or PPV and also that younger surgeons are less trained on SB than PPV.