We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

Complications of Pneumatic Retinopexy

James S. Schutz, MD1; Olivier Richoz, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Ophthalmology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(10):1370. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.4590.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor The report by Fabian and colleagues1 of outcomes in 258 cases of pneumatic retinopexy (PR), in our opinion, does not support their conclusion that “with proper selection of cases PR is a good surgical option for primary RRD [rhegmatogenous retinal detachment].”1 In their series of selected RRD cases with relatively good prognosis, “a single surgery anatomical success was achieved in only 158 eyes (61.2%).”1 The authors note final anatomical success in 99.2%, but the rate of complications is impressively high for a series of RRDs with favorable prognosis: 2% macular hole, 13% epiretinal membrane, 3.4% proliferative vitreoretinopathy, 5.4% with silicone oil (4 eyes’ second operation and 10 eyes with >2 operations), and 4.7% late redetachment. The 258 initial PRs were followed by 126 reoperations. Relatively high reoperation and complication rates are supported by the literature.24 Scleral buckling for “simple” cases has a much lower complication rate and should be the operation of choice under normal circumstances, or alternatively vitrectomy should be used.5


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





October 1, 2013
Ido Didi Fabian, MD; Joseph Moisseiev, MD
1Goldschleger Eye Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(10):1370-1371. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5371.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Related Collections