Comparative study of retinal detachment surgery using a silicone sponge with and without tenon?s capsule covering

Lukpan Orazbekov, Elmira Kanafyanova, Kairat Ruslanuly

2023

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.37845/ret.vit.2023.32.6
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Purpose: To perform and compare the results of circumferential buckling using a silicone sponge with and without Tenon's capsule covering. Materials and Methods:We analyzed cases of silicon sponge rejection after 691 cases of circumferential buckling using a silicone sponge in retinal detachment from 2007 to 2020.Depending on whether a silicone sponge was covered with Tenon's capsule, all cases were divided into two groups: Group A (covered) -349 cases; Group B (not covered) -342 cases.The follow-up period was up to 2 years.Results: In Group A, where a silicone sponge was covered with Tenon's capsule, the rate of silicon sponge rejection was 0.3% (1 case), while in Group B, where the operation was performed classically, the rate of silicon sponge rejection was 5.2% (18 cases) (p<0.01). Conclusions:Our study shows the possibility of minimizing the silicon sponge rejection with a simple method: covering a silicone sponge with Tenon's capsule. Keywords: scleral buckling, silicone sponge rejection, Tenon's capsule, retinal detachment surgery.A (covered) -349 cases; Group B (not covered) -342 cases.Both groups, in terms of number, age, and gender proportion, were equal.In Group A, the mean age ± standard deviation was 42.1 ± 13.4 years: 161 women (46.1%) and 188 men (53.9%).In Group B, the mean age ± standard deviation was 43.5 ± 12.5 years: 155 women (45.3%) and 187 men (54.7%).