In the study herein, GRT more than 180° were successfully treated with combined PPV and encircling scleral buckle, and the tear was further stabilized with adjuvant 360° laser retinopexy and postoperative oil tamponade. This approach afforded good anatomical and visual outcomes.
Management of GRT is a challenging surgical problem with many different approaches to manage; however, when the GRT is more than 180°, the intervention is rather complex.
Adjuvant scleral buckling in the management of GRT is still debatable. In this study, an encircling buckle was routinely placed in all cases in the primary intervention irrespective to grade of PVR. The rationale is that GRT more than 180° has a high risk of recurrence and it is essential to target successful attachment in the primary surgery as reoperation is rather complex in these cases and the outcome is often poor. Also, previous studies reported that the larger the size of the giant tear, the more the risk of redetachment [8]. Additionally, GRT more than 180° often involve the inferior retina and thus buckle is often needed, in addition to silicon oil tamponade, to support the inferior quadrant.
Some surgeons prefer PPV without buckling in management of GRT, provided that traction is relieved after thorough vitrectomy. Additionally, buckling can complicate the closure of GRT by causing a gaping of retinal tissue, redundant retinal folds when the buckle is tightened, fish-mouthing and increased tendency of posterior retinal slippage [3, 4, 6, 14].
Conversely, other surgeons prefer adjunctive buckling in as a primary procedure aiming to reduce the failure rate. Their rationale was that scleral buckling reduces the early and late tractional forces, and supports areas of undetected retinal breaks [15, 16]. Meanwhile, other surgeons reserve scleral buckling only for second intervention [2].
Previous studies reported successful repair of GRT with PPV and 360° laser retinopexy without scleral buckling. Kreiger et al. [6] previously treated 11 cases with GRT with PPV and silicon oil tamponade with strong emphasis on extended laser treatment to the whole peripheral retina to create strong adhesion and to minimize secondary tears due to anterior PVR. They didn’t place a scleral buckle in their study. Their procedure was successful in 10 (90.9%) eyes and they experienced recurrence in only one (9.1%) case occurred as the result of posterior PVR.
Similarly, Ambresin et al. [3] treated a series of 18 eyes with the same technique and they experienced successful retinal attachment in 16 (88.8%) eyes and recurrence in only two eyes.
On the other hand, in a prospective randomized comparative study conducted by Sharma et al. [16], they used 360° degree 9 mm silicone band buckle in 10 cases and none in 11 cases. They reported that the primary success was 100% in sclera buckle group as compared to 37.5% in non sclera buckle group, and that resurgeries were required in 8 out of11 cases in non-scleral buckle group. The final visual acuity was better in eyes treated with scleral buckle.
Also, the intraoperative use of PFCL was essential to unfold the retina, to displace subretinal fluid and blood, and to stabilize the retina-providing counter attraction for any membrane dissection, and to avoid the need for drainage retinotomy [4, 8]. Retinal slippage in the presence of buckle was avoided by doing direct PFCL/silicon exchange and tightening of the scleral buckle was done before exchange to ensure complete silicon fill. It is still difficult to compare these results with previous reports due to the difference in the clinical characteristics of the study subjects and surgical procedure.
Controversy remains whether lens extraction is necessary or not in the management of fresh giant tears. The advantage of lens removal is the better visualization of vitreous base. In this series, it was found that lens removal was not necessary and may minimize the surgical trauma in such complex procedure. In addition, intraocular lens power calculation is often inaccurate in eyes with GRT when the macula is off. Moreover, the use of wide angle viewing systems coupled with indentation for giant tear surgery improves the ability to see the peripheral retina in phakic and pseudophakic eyes and makes thorough vitreous base shaving feasible.
This doesn’t agree with Kreiger et al. [6], who believed that a lensectomy is necessary for optimal removal of the basal vitreous and provides excellent visualization postoperatively for photocoagulation and avoids subsequent cataract surgery. Sharma et al. [16] considered lens removal only in cataractous eyes, subluxated lenses or the presence of PVR are the main indications for lens removal in GRT.
Also, many eyes with GRTs are often highly myopic and the pars plana region is often wide and broad. This anatomic variation allows adequate exposure of the vitreous base with less risk of lens touch. However, the initial surgery for GRT should not be compromised to preserve the lens. In the current study, cataract developed in 14 of the 18 phakic eyes and phacoemulsifaction was done during silicon oil removal thus avoiding disadvantages of multiple surgeries.
