Background The purpose of the study is to compare visual acuity, complications and outer retinal integrity following subretinal fluid (SRF) drainage from the peripheral retinal breaks (PRBs) versus posterior retinotomy (PR) versus perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) for macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRDs) at 2 years post-surgery. Methods Retrospective analysis of 300 consecutive patients with primary RRD undergoing 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with SRF drainage through (1) PRB (n=100), (2) PR (n=100) or (3) with PFCL (n=100). Primary outcomes were visual acuity (best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)) and complications (cystoid macular oedema (CMO) and epiretinal membrane (ERM)). Secondary outcomes were discontinuity of the external limiting membrane (ELM), ellipsoid zone (EZ) and interdigitation zone (IDZ) at 2 years post-surgery. Results Mean (±SD) logMAR BCVA at 24 months was better in the PRB compared with PR and PFCL, with PFCL having the worst BCVA (PRB 0.5±0.6; PR 0.7±0.5; PFCL 0.9±0.7, p=0.001). CMO was higher with PFCL (PRB 29.7%; PR 30.2%; PFCL 45.9%, p=0.0015) and ERM formation was higher in PR (PRB 62.6%; PR 93.0%; PFCL 68.9%, p=0.002). There were no differences in ELM or EZ discontinuity. However, IDZ discontinuity was higher in PFCL (PRB 34%; PR 27%; PFCL 46%, p=0.002) at 2 years. Conclusions Visual acuity was worse and discontinuity of the IDZ and CMO was greater in eyes with PFCL-assisted drainage compared with PRB or PR. Drainage technique may impact long-term visual acuity and photoreceptor integrity. No data are available.

中文翻译：

---

黄斑中心凹孔源性视网膜脱离玻璃体切除术中不同视网膜下液体引流技术的两年结果：ELLIPSOID-2 研究


背景 本研究的目的是比较周边视网膜裂孔 (PRB) 视网膜下液 (SRF) 引流、后视网膜切开术 (PR) 与全氟化碳液体 (PFCL) 治疗黄斑孔源性视网膜后的视力、并发症和外视网膜完整性。术后 2 年的分队 (RRD)。方法 对连续 300 例原发性 RRD 患者进行回顾性分析，这些患者接受 23 号扁平部玻璃体切除术并通过 (1) PRB (n=100)、(2) PR (n=100) 或 (3) 合并 PFCL (n=100) 进行 SRF 引流）。主要结局是视力（最佳矫正视力（BCVA））和并发症（黄斑囊样水肿（CMO）和视网膜前膜（ERM））。次要结果是术后 2 年外界膜 (ELM)、椭圆体区 (EZ) 和叉指区 (IDZ) 的不连续性。结果 24 个月时 PRB 的平均 (±SD) logMAR BCVA 优于 PR 和 PFCL，其中 PFCL 的 BCVA 最差（PRB 0.5±0.6；PR 0.7±0.5；PFCL 0.9±0.7，p=0.001）。 PFCL 组的 CMO 较高（PRB 29.7%；PR 30.2%；PFCL 45.9%，p=0.0015），PR 组的 ERM 形成较高（PRB 62.6%；PR 93.0%；PFCL 68.9%，p=0.002）。 ELM 或 EZ 不连续性没有差异。然而，2 年时 PFCL 的 IDZ 不连续性较高（PRB 34%；PR 27%；PFCL 46%，p=0.002）。结论 与 PRB 或 PR 相比，PFCL 辅助引流眼的视力较差，IDZ 和 CMO 不连续性更大。引流技术可能会影响长期视力和感光器完整性。无可用数据。