Comparison of safety and effectiveness between 23-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy surgery in common vitreoretinal diseases.

To assess and compare safety and effectiveness between 23-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy systems for the treatment of common vitreoretinal diseases in non-vitrectomized eyes. Retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy from April 2018 to December 2019 at the Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV) for the following indications: macular epiretinal membrane, macular hole, macular lamellar hole, vitreous hemorrhage, vitreous opacities, vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular edema. 201 eyes of 195 patients that underwent 23-gauge (n = 105 eyes) or 25-gauge (n = 96 eyes) vitrectomy were included in this study. The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved at 1-3 months postoperatively and beyond 3 months in both gauge groups. Risk of any complication within 1 month postoperatively was lower in the 25-gauge group, but the difference was statistically not significant (HR [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.53; 1.70], p = 0.85). Intraocular pressure less than 5 mmHg was observed in 2 eyes (2%) in the 23-gauge group at the first postoperative day. Intraocular pressure elevation over 25 mmHg occurred in 5 eyes (2 eyes, 2%, in 23-gauge and 3 eyes, 3%, in 25-gauge group) at postoperative day 1, between 7 and 28 days in 5 cases (2 eyes, 2%, in 23-gauge and 3 eyes, 3%, in 25-gauge group), and in 2 eyes (2%) of the 23-gauge group at postoperative day 145 and 61, respectively. Retinal detachment occurred in 1 eye (1%) in the 23-gauge and in 3 eyes (3%) in the 25-gauge group. We did not observe any cases of endophthalmitis. Results in terms of safety, surgical success and visual outcomes for the treatment of common vitreoretinal surgery indications seem to be comparable between 23-gauge and 25-gauge vitrectomy systems, indicating that the two gauge systems can be used equally in the clinical routine.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: consultant at Oertli Instruments (Andreas Pollreisz).This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.