Comparison of treatment outcomes of 360° intraoperative laser retinopexy and focal laser retinopexy with pars plans vitrectomy in patients with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

BACKGROUND

This study was to compare the outcomes of 360° intra-operative laser retinopexy (ILR) and focal laser retinopexy in treating patients with pars plans vitrectomy (PPV) for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). To identify other potential risk factors for retinal re-detachment after primary PPV.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Three hundred and forty-four consecutive cases of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treated with PPV were included between July 2013 and July 2018. Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between focal laser retinopexy and additional 360° intra-operative laser retinopexy groups. Both univariate and multiple variable analysis were used to identify potential risk factors for retinal re-detachment.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.2 months (Q1, Q3:2.0, 17.2). As estimated with survival analysis, the 360º ILR group had the incidence of 9.74% and focal laser 19.54% at 6 months postoperatively. At 12 months postoperatively the difference was 10.78% vs. 25.21%. The difference in survival rates was significant (p = 0.0021). In multivariate Cox regression, the risk factors for retinal re-detachment were without additional 360° ILR, diabetes and macula off before the primary surgery (relatively OR = 0.456, 95%-CI [0.245-0.848], p < 0.05; OR = 2.301, 95% CI [1.130-4.687], p < 0.05; OR = 2.243, 95% CI [1.212-4.149], p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Additional 360° ILR group had a significantly lower rate of retinal re-detachment when compared with focal laser retinopexy group. Our study also elucidated that diabetes and macular off before the primary surgery might also be the potential risk factors for higher rate of retinal re-detachment outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This was a retrospective cohort study.

Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria

This investigation is the second in a series to examine a potential source of reduced intelligibility in dysarthric speech, namely the mismatch between listeners' perceptual strategies and the acoustic information available in the dysarthric speech signal. Lexical boundary error (LBE) analysis was conducted on listener transcripts from phrases produced by speakers with hypokinetic dysarthria, ataxic dysarthria, and normal controls. By design, the hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthric tapes elicited similar intelligibility (words-correct) scores. However, they elicited different numbers and patterns of lexical boundary errors. The nature of the error pattern differences can be traced to the listeners' use of available syllabic strength information to segment the acoustic stream. Specifically, although both dysarthric speech samples elicited numerous lexical boundary errors, those for the hypokinetic speech generally conformed to predictions offered from studies of degraded normal speech. Those for the ataxic speech did not conform strongly to such predictions. It appears that the prosodic deficits of the ataxic speech (tendency toward syllabic isochrony, excessive loudness variation, and reduced vowel working space consequent to reductions in vowel strength) posed more of a problem for listeners than did the prosodic deficits of the hypokinetic speech (rapid rate, monotony, reduced vowel working space).