Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 412
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
CASE REPORT
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 67  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 431-432

Commentary: Revival of scleral buckling technique with Chandelier illumination


Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication18-Feb-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ekta Rishi
Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretina Services, Medical Research Foundation, Sankara Nethralaya, No. 18, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1964_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Rishi E, Manchegowda PT. Commentary: Revival of scleral buckling technique with Chandelier illumination. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019;67:431-2

How to cite this URL:
Rishi E, Manchegowda PT. Commentary: Revival of scleral buckling technique with Chandelier illumination. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 May 24];67:431-2. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2019/67/3/431/252420



Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is one of the vision-threatening conditions affecting the retina; timely management by a proper procedure yields excellent anatomical and functional outcomes. The available options of surgery include pneumatic retinopexy, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), and scleral buckling.[1]

Scleral buckling has been regarded as a simple, time-tested, effective extraocular procedure in the management of RRD. It has a long learning curve, less surgeon comfort, more patient discomfort, and poor ergonomics. With the advent of microincision vitrectomy and wide-angle viewing systems, there has been a shift in the trend toward pars plana vitretomy.[2] Conventional scleral buckling procedure has now been considered as a “dying art.” Adoption of endoillumination and wide-angle visualization systems (contact/noncontact) have rejuvenated this procedure in the recent years.[3],[4],[5],[6] In this review, we have compared Chandelier illumination–assisted scleral buckling (CSB) with standard scleral buckling (SSB) and PPV.

SSB requires repeated wearing and removal of indirect ophthalmoscope in the operation theater which makes it inconvenient and time-consuming as well.[7] Even though some ophthalmoscopes are equipped with teaching mirrors for assistant's visualization, SSB has a very limited role in teaching vitreoretinal trainees. On the other hand, CSB with its excellent magnification and visualization of tissues has helped in intraoperative identification of missed retinal breaks. Many complex RRD can be tackled with better illumination as highlighted in a case report where CSB was possible in case of retained intraocular foreign body.[8] One case report showed CSB success in identification of undetected break preoperatively.[9] Comparison of features between SSB, CSB, and PPV is illustrated in [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparison of features between SSB, CSB, and PPV

Click here to view


Surgical time is also seen to be significantly reduced in CSB according to two studies which compared CSB and SSB outcomes.[8],[10] CSB and SSB are cost-effective when compared with PPV. Surgeon's neck comfort is well taken care of in CSB. The main advantage of CSB is its use as a teaching aid for the future retinal surgeons thereby modifying the SSB technique preserving the aim of the surgery to support the breaks externally and at the same time improving the visualization allowing the technique to be used in complex RRD.[10] Only theoretical concerns that have been expressed are light toxicity, cataract, infection, and vitreous incarceration in port sites. But with advanced microsurgery techniques with small gauge vitrectomy instrumentation, those complications are almost nonevident.

The major randomized study till date by the SPR study group observed SSB to be as effective as PPV in phakic patients (63.6% vs 63.8%) in terms of primary retinal attachment rates. They also showed less cataract progression in SSB in comparison to PPV (45.9% vs 77.3%).[11] Hence, CSB is expected to have better outcomes which has been demonstrated in several small case series. CSB studies are summarized in [Table 2]. CSB can also help in better visualization in patients with pseudophakic RRD where posterior capsular opacification and reflexes hinder visualizatiion of breaks.
Table 2: Summary of CSB outcome in different studies

Click here to view


CSB is a modification of SSB in modern times taking care of the surgeons' comfort, better visualization at a higher magnification enhancing the anatomical outcome in complex RRD, and at the same time it an excellent teaching tool for the budding vitreoretinal surgeons which has revived the technique of SSB.[12]



 
  References Top

1.
D'Amico DJ. Clinical practice: Primary retinal detachment. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2346-54.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ah-Fat FG, Sharma MC, Majid MA, McGalliard JN, Wong D. Trends in vitreoretinal surgery at a tertiary referral centre: 1987 to 1996. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:396-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Venkatesh P, Garg S. Endoilluminationassisted scleral buckling: A new approach to retinal detachment repair. Retin Physician 2012;9:34-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Aras C, Ucar D, Koytak A, Yetik H. Scleral buckling with a non-contact wide-angle viewing system. Ophthalmologica 2012;227:107-10.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Imai H, Tagami M, Azumi A. Scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using noncontact wide-angle viewing system with a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:2103-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Nagpal M, Bhardwaj S, Mehrotra N. Scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using vitrectomybased visualization systems and chandelier illumination. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2013;2:165-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Oshima YU. Chandeleirendoillumiunation in vitreoretinal surgery. Retina Today 2013;8:68-72.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Jo J, Moon BG, Lee JY. Scleral buckling using a non-contact wide-angle viewing system with a 25-gauge chandelier endoilluminator. Korean J Ophthalmol 2017;31:533-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kita M, Fujii Y, Kawagoe N, Hama S. Scleral buckling with a noncontact wide-angle viewing system in the management of retinal detachment with undetected retinal break: Acase report. Clin Ophthalmol 2013;7:587-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Narayanan R, Tyagi M, Hussein A, Chhablani J, Apte RS. Scleral buckling with wide-angled endoillumination as a surgical educational tool. Retina 2016;36:830-3.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Heimann H, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Bornfeld N, Weiss C, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH, et al. Scleral Buckling versus Primary Vitrectomy in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Study Group. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A prospective randomized multicenter clinical study. Ophthalmology 2007;114:2142-54.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Seider MI, Nomides RE, Hahn P, Mruthyunjaya P, Mahmoud TH. Scleral buckling with chandelier illumination. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016;11:304-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed338    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded55    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal