Skip to main content
Download PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treatment patterns

BMC Ophthalmology volume 21, Article number: 372 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Backgrounds

To describe changes in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) surgical procedures in Beijing during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of RRD patients was analyzed. Patients were divided into the COVID-19 pandemic group and pre-COVID-19 group according to their presentation. The presurgery characteristics, surgical procedures, and surgery outcomes were collected. The potential factors related to the choice of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) or scleral buckling (SB) were analyzed using logistic regression. The differences in the procedure choice under specific conditions were compared. Surgery outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

In the COVID-19 pandemic group, less patients received SB (27.8, 41.3%, p = 0.02) while more patients received PPV (72.2, 58.6%, p = 0.02); in patients who received SB, fewer patients received subretinal fluid drainage (45.4,75.7%, p = 0.01); in patients who received PPV, fewer patients received phacovitrectomy (7.0, 21.0%, p = 0.02). The choice of PPV was related to older age (1.03, p = 0.005), the presence of RRD with choroidal detachment (RRD-CD) (2.92, p = 0.03), pseudophakia (5.0, p = 0.002), retinal breaks located posterior to the equator (4.87, p < 0.001), macular holes (9.76, p = 0.005), and a presurgery visual acuity (VA) less than 0.02 (0.44, p = 0.03). Fewer phakia patients with retinal breaks located posterior to the equator (1/28, 11/30, p = 0.01) and fewer patients with chronic RRD and subretinal strand (1/9, 9/16, p = 0.03) received SB in the COVID-19 pandemic group. There were more patients with improved VA (55.7, 40.2%, p = 0.03) in the COVID-19 pandemic group. The overall single-surgery retinal attachment rate was similar in the two groups (94.9, 94.5%, p = 0.99).

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the main reason for the increased number of PPV in RRD treatment was that more complicated cases were presented. However, the surgeons were conservative in procedure choice in specific cases. The adjustments on RRD treatments lead to comparable surgery outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Background

Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a vision-threatening emergency condition characterized by separating the neurosensory retina from the underlying retinal pigment epithelium, requiring emergent treatment [1, 2]. The current repairment procedures for RRD include pneumatic retinopexy, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), and scleral buckling (SB) [3]. The procedure chosen depends on patients’ preoperative characteristics and surgeons’ preferences [4]. Previous reports focusing on RRD progression found that prolonged preoperative waiting time is related to the development of macular-off RRD [5], irreversible macular damage [6,7,8], proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) progression [9], and development of choroidal detachment (CD) [10]. In addition, previous studies have shown that during national meetings or holiday-time, reduced staffing is often associated with adverse patient outcomes, changes in treatment patterns, and care delays in acute cardiovascular conditions [1, 11, 12] and RRD patients [13].

It is known that the front-line healthcare workers are at increased risk for the COVID-19 infection [14]. In particular, ophthalmologists are one of the three subspecialties with the highest risk of COVID-19 infection since the eye surface and the nasopharyngeal mucosa, expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme two (ACE2) receptors, are the exposed surfaces amenable to contagion [15, 16]. Since March 11, 2020, widespread changes and restrictions to social and sanitary practices have created significant eye-care access issues during the COVID-19 Pandemic [17]. Additionally, several national ophthalmology societies recommended reducing outpatient visits and postponing any treatment other than urgent or emergent care to contain human to human viral transmission and diverging resources to intensive care units, thus experiencing a dramatic drop in the care providing. Several authors have already discussed the ethical impact of delivering treatments to patients in need since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak [18]. For example, the EUROCOVAT group has reported changes in elective cataract surgeries [19], intravitreal injections [20], and corneal donors [21].

Furthermore, a framework has been reported in patients receiving intravitreal injections suffering from sight-threatening conditions when the available resources are limited, precluding all patients’ accommodation [19, 22]. A recent study from the US noted a decline in SB procedures and an increase in PPV on RRD patients in the non-COVID-19 period [23]. RRD surgical repairment was one of the remaining few ophthalmological surgery services during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Beijing. Here, all admitted patients needed a 14-day self-quarantine and negative COVID-19 test before they were accepted, and RRD surgeries were performed with limited operation resources, restricted general anesthesia, and limited follow-up visits. The research of COVID-19’s impact has tended to focus on the RRD characteristics [24, 25] rather than the procedures the surgeons chose. Accordingly, the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on RRD treatment is still unknown. This study, therefore, set out to assess the influence of COVID-19 on RRD procedure choice in a consecutive cohort of hospitalized RRD patients from the pre-COVID-19 period and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of surgeries from October 8, 2019, to April 30, 2020. We identified all hospitalized patients with RRD who underwent surgery at Beijing Tongren Eye Center during this period and divided them into the pre-COVID-19 pandemic group and the COVID-19 pandemic group, depending on when they were admitted for surgery. Calendar dates from February 10 to April 30, 2020, were used for the COVID-19 Pandemic period (the COVID-19 pandemic group) when the top-level response was carried out in Beijing. Calendar dates from October 8 to December 30, 2019, were used for the pre-COVID-19 period (the pre-COVID-19 group). The charts of enrolled patients were reviewed. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Tongren Hospital and adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki’s tenets. The informed consent was waived. The work has been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria [26].

The patient presurgery characteristics were collected, including presurgery wait time, the previous history of eye trauma, age, gender, PPV or SB, presurgery VA, retinal break location, lens status, the combination of pathological myopia (PM), the extent of retinal detachment, concomitant PVR, and CD. We also collected data on the specific surgical procedures. The outcome of VA and single surgery retinal attachment rate (SSRA) at 3 months after the surgery were investigated.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using version 3.20 of R (http://www.R-project.org). Patient characteristics were retrieved from their medical charts and recorded in version 2.0.3.15 of EpiData Entry Client (http://epidata.dk). VA results were converted to logMAR values for statistical analysis. VA improvement was defined as a final VA gain of more than two lines. Mean and standard deviation (SD) values were calculated for continuous variables with a normal distribution. Medians with quartile values were calculated for continuous variables with a non-normal distribution. The t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was carried out for continuous variables. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were carried out for discrete data.

To investigate the factors related to PPV or SB choice, we divided the patients into the PPV group and the SB group, depending on the procedure the patient received. The presurgery patients’ characteristics were compared between the two groups. Factors with p < 0.1 were enrolled in a binary backward stepwise logistic regression model. One variable was included or excluded from the model each time by comparing the Akaike information criterion (AIC) value, and the model with the lowest AIC was chosen. The Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for each logistic regression model.

To investigate the surgeons’ choice differences in the presence of specific potential risk factors in the two different periods, we divided the patients into the COVID-19 pandemic group and pre-COVID-19 group, depending on the patients’ presentation. The ratio of PPV/SB was calculated and compared between groups.

The VA improvement was defined as the final VA increased three lines or more from the baseline VA. The percentage of patients with VA improvement and SSRA were compared between the two groups with chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Changes in the treatment patterns (Table 1)

We identified 258 inpatients with RRD in our study. Among these patients, 79 were admitted during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and 179 were admitted during the pre-COVID-19 period.

Table 1 The difference in treatment patterns between the two groups
Full size table

Compared to the pre-COVID-19 group, fewer patients received SB (27.8, 41.3%) while more patients received PPV (72.2, 58.6%, p = 0.02). In patients who received SB, fewer patients received subretinal fluid drainage (45.4, 75.7%, p = 0.01) in the COVID-19 pandemic group. In patients who received PPV, fewer patients received PPV combined with cataract extraction (7.0, 21.0%, p = 0.02) in the COVID-19 pandemic group. The prevalence of silicone oil (91.2, 86.7%) or gas (8.8, 13.3%) tamponade in patients was similar between the two groups (p = 0.45).

The impact of patients’ presurgery characteristics on the treatment patterns

The patients in the COVID-19 pandemic group had longer median presurgery waiting times than patients in the pre-COVID-19 group (28 days, 4 days, p < 0.001). The rate of RRD-CD (34.2, 19.6%, p = 0.01), pseudophakia (22.8, 13.4%, p = 0.047), and retinal breaks located posterior to the equator (48.1, 22.9%, p < 0.001) were higher in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group.

The presurgery characteristics of the PPV group and SB group were listed in Table 2. There was a significant difference in age (p < 0.001), prevalence of RRD-CD (p < 0.001), recurrent RRD (p = 0.04), VA less than 0.02 (p < 0.001), VA of 0.1–0.5 (p < 0.001), VA greater than 0.5 (p = 0.01), pseudophakia (p = 0.004), location of retinal breaks (p < 0.001), macula-off status (p < 0.001), and PVR B-C (p < 0.001) during the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.054) between the two groups (Table 2).

Table 2 The patient presurgery characteristics in PPV and SB group
Full size table

Factors related to the choice of PPV in the logistic regression model were older, with the presence of RRD-CD and pseudophakia, retinal breaks located posterior to the equator, a macular hole, and presurgery VA less than 0.02 (AIC = 226.14, AUC = 0.882) (Fig. 1 and Table 3). Those presenting severe PVR, recurrent RRD, or PM during the COVID-19 Pandemic were excluded from the model.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The ROC curve of the logistic regression model for factors related to the choice of PPV

Full size image
Table 3 The factors related to the choice of PPV in the logistic regression model
Full size table

Factors related to the choice of SB in the logistic regression model were younger age, with the absence of RRD-CD and phakia, retinal breaks located anterior to the equator, and presurgery VA less than 0.02 (AIC = 249.69, AUC = 0.846) (Fig. 2 and Table 4). Those presenting severe PVR, recurrent RRD, or PM during the COVID-19 Pandemic were excluded from the model.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The ROC curve of the logistic regression model for factors related to the choice of SB

Full size image
Table 4 The presurgery characteristics related to the difference of PPV/SB ratio in the two groups
Full size table

The impact of the surgeon’s decision changes on the treatment patterns

We further investigated the difference of procedure choice between the two groups in the presence of specific factors mentioned above that favor PPV or SB. We compared the ratio of PPV/SB between the two groups on each factor enrolled in the logistic regression model (Table 4). We showed that the PPV/SB ratio was similar between the two groups in age (p = 0.18), RRD-CD(p = 0.46), retinal breaks located anterior to the equator (p = 0.59), macular hole (p = 0.85), and pseudophakia (p = 0.1). The PPV/SB ratio was different between the two groups in patients with retinal breaks located posterior to the equator (p = 0.002) and VA less than 0.02 (p = 0.03).

We showed fewer surgeons selected SB in patients with retinal breaks located posterior to the equator in the COVID-19 Pandemic (1,11, p = 0.002). In those patients, there were more pseudophakic patients in the COVID-19 pandemic group than the pre-COVID-19 group (9/38, 0/41, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in age (52.2, 51.9, p = 0.66), presurgery waiting times (5.1, 7.1, p = 0.16), severe PVR (32/38, 28/41, p = 0.11), RRD-CD (21/38, 30/41, p = 0.11), PM (11/38, 7/41, p = 0.28), or macula-off (35/38, 34/41, p = 0.31).

Aside from the impact of pseudophakia on the treatment pattern, there were fewer phakia patients with retinal breaks located posterior to the equator who received SB in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group (1/28, 11/30, p = 0.01). There were seven patients in the pre-COVID-19 group, and none in the COVID-19 pandemic group received radial buckling.

We also showed fewer patients whose VA was less than 0.02 received SB in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group (5/48, 19/75, p = 0.03). Those patients whose VA was less than 0.02 had a higher prevalence of retinal breaks located posterior to the equator (31/48, 17/75, p < 0.001), and there were shorter presurgery waiting times (4.8, 17.0 months, p = 0.008) in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age (54.0, 51.4 years, p = 0.36), combination of PM (14/48, 27/75, p = 0.56), RRD-CD (22/48, 23/75, p = 0.13), pseudophakia (11/48, 8/75, p = 0.08), severe of PVR (41/48, 56/75, p = 0.23), or macular-off status (41/48, 71/75, p = 1.0). Most patients with retinal breaks located posterior to the equator in the two groups received PPV (31/31,15/17, p = 0.12). The patients with retinal breaks located anterior to the equator presented with chronic RRD patients with PVR C; fewer of them received SB in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group (1/9, 9/16, p = 0.03).

The impact of the surgeon’s decision changes on the adjunctive procedures

We showed fewer patients who received cataract extraction combined with PPV in the COVID-19 pandemic groups (4/57, 22/105, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in patients’ presurgery characteristics for those who received combined surgery or those who received PPV in the two groups (Table 5).

Table 5 The presurgery characteristic of patients in the two group underwent combined surgery or PPV
Full size table

We showed fewer patients who received subretinal fluid drainage in SB surgery (10/22, 56/74, p = 0.01). In those without subretinal fluid drainage, the rate of PM in the COVID-19 pandemic group was higher than in the pre-COVID-19 group (9/13, 5/28, p = 0.003), and the presurgery waiting times were shorter in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group (4.2, 15.3 months, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in other presurgery characteristics between the two groups. There was no significant difference in presurgery characteristics in patients who received subretinal fluid drainage between the two groups (Table 6).

Table 6 The presurgery characteristic of patients in the two group underwent subretinal fluid drainage or without subretinal fluid drainage
Full size table

The outcomes of surgery

Compared to patients in the pre-COVID-19 group, the percentage of patients with VA improvement was higher in the COVID-19 group (55.7, 40.2%, p = 0.03).

The overall SSRA rate was similar in the two groups (94.9, 94.5%, p = 0.99). Also, the SSRA rate of PPV (96.5, 94.3%, p = 0.80) and SB (90.9, 94.6%, p = 0.61) was similar in the two groups.

One out of seven patients with a retinal break located posterior to the equator who received radial buckling and one out of two pseudophakic patients with macular on status in the pre-COVID-19 group failed the SB surgery and required secondary surgery.

Discussion

The COVID-19 Pandemic significantly impacted clinical work. Surgeons perform retinal detachment repairment in the most challenging conditions when facing the reduction of outpatient service and operative resources, the restricted use of general anesthesia, limited follow-up visits, and more complicated cases. This study investigated the real-world data on the changes in RRD treatments in the COVID-19 Pandemic. We found that the surgeons’ choice of the procedure depended mainly on the patients’ characteristics and was not influenced by the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, when facing more complicated cases, the surgeons were more conservative, choosing PPV instead of SB and giving up subretinal fluid drainage in SB cases or cataract extraction in PPV cases. Fortunately, in the COVID-19 pandemic period, the treatment changes in more complicated cases led to a VA and retinal attachment rate that was comparable to the same rate in the pre-COVID-19 period.

To rule out the impact of long holidays on the treatment changes, we did not include patients who presented during the Chinese Spring Festival. To rule out the impact of surgeon preference and reshaping of retinal residents training during COVID-19 [27] on the treatment, we selected a cohort of patients treated by the same group of professor surgeons.

It has been reported that pseudophakia, older age, location and number of retinal breaks, and vitreous hemorrhage are related to PPV choice, while lattice degeneration and younger age are associated with SB choice [4, 23, 28]. Other factors known to contribute to the selection of PPV over SB are macular holes, giant tears, severe PVR [29], and RRD-CD [30, 31]. Similar to the previous works, we found that pseudophakia, RRD-CD, older age, retinal breaks located posterior to the equator, macular holes, and worse VA were associated with the selection of PPV over SB.

We found that the prevalence of RRD-CD, pseudophakia, retinal breaks located posterior to the equator, and VA less than 0.02 was higher in the COVID-19 pandemic group than in the pre-COVID-19 group. The more complicated cases presented during the COVID-19 Pandemic may contribute to the increased number of patients who received PPV.

Meta-analysis notes that the retinal attachment rate in pseudophakic eyes performed with PPV is higher than with SB [3]. The recurrence of RD occurs more frequently in pseudophakic eyes due to PVD, vitreous base traction, and multiple undetected breaks [32]. We found that pseudophakia prevalence was 22.8% in the COVID-19 Pandemic, higher than 13.4% in the pre-COVID-19 period, which may contribute to the increased PPV performed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The prevalence of RRD-CD is 8.6–19.62% [10, 33].RRD-CD is related to the progression of PVR [34] and recurrent RRD [35]. The retinal attachment rate for PPV in RRD-CD patients is reported as 72.57% [36]. RRD-CD prevalence was 34.2% in the COVID-19 Pandemic, higher than 19.6% in the pre-COVID-19 period. It may also contribute to the increased PPV performed during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The vitreoretinal traction is related to developing the retinal break located posterior to the equator and RRD [4, 37]. In SB surgery, for patients with retinal tears posterior to the equator, releasing the vitreoretinal traction requires a careful buckle selection and orientation tailored to the tear [8, 9, 15]. The inadequate buckle may lead to the opening of the retinal break and surgery failure [38]. On the contrary, PPV has an advantage in dealing with the vitreoretinal traction and closing the break at the same time [3, 39]. The higher prevalence of retinal break located posterior or to the equator was found in the COVID-19 pandemic group (48.1%), which may contribute to PPV selection.

Altogether, the selection of PPV over SB in our study was mainly based on the presurgery RRD characteristics. The increased number of complicated cases may result in the increased PPV in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We then investigated the difference in treatment patterns between the COVID-19 pandemic group and the pre-COVID-19 group in patients with certain similar conditions.

We found fewer patients with retinal break located posterior to the equator who received SB in the COVID-19 pandemic group. Since there were more pseudophakia patients in the COVID-19 pandemic group, we investigated the treatment pattern in phakia patients. Even in phakia patients, fewer patients in the COVID-19 pandemic group received SB than the pre-COVID-19 group. In patients with retinal break located posterior to the equator who received SB, seven patients in the pre-COVID-19 group and none in the COVID-19 pandemic group received radial scleral buckling. Several considerations can explain the reluctance of performing SB in patients with retinal break posterior to the equator in the COVID-19 Pandemic: 1) there was restricted use of general anesthesia in the COVID-19 Pandemic, and patients had inadequate compliance under local anesthesia and could not tolerate the complicated SB surgery; 2) the SB procedure for patients with retinal break located posterior to the equator is time-consuming, and it was challenging for the surgeon to perform the complicated SB surgery under enforced medical protective equipment used against COVID-19 virus contamination; 3) it was challenging to arrange intense follow-up visits and secondary surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We found fewer patients in the COVID-19 pandemic group received combined phacovitrectomy than the pre-COVID group when the patients in both groups had similar presurgery RRD characteristics. Besides the longer surgery time of the combined procedure, the combined phacovitrectomy may lead to elevated IOP, anterior chamber fibrin reaction, posterior synechia [40, 41], and more significant postoperative refractive prediction error [42]. It is challenging to arrange frequent follow-up to monitor the anterior chamber reaction and IOP in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The shortage of biometry examination for intraocular lens calculation made the surgeons postpone the combined cataract extraction surgery due to the disinfection process.

Subretinal fluid drainage is commonly performed during SB [38, 43] and may cause subretinal hemorrhage, retinal perforation, drainage of the liquefied vitreous, vitreoretinal incarceration, eye hypotony, and choroidal detachment [44]. However, only a few cases of subretinal fluid drainage were noted during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The risk of subretinal fluid drainage complications and the difficulties of treating SB’s complications are the main concerns in performing SB during COVID-19. Therefore, a drop in the number of subretinal fluid drainage cases was noted during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We further investigated the RRD characteristics in patients who received SB alone. More PM patients received SB alone during the COVID-19 Pandemic. PM is known as the risk factor for developing CD after scleral buckling [45]. The fear of subretinal fluid drainage complications, mostly when patients are under local anesthesia, makes the surgeons give up the adjunctive procedure or turn to PPV instead.

Regarding patients with chronic RRD and retinal breaks located anterior to the equator, one patient in the COVID-19 group and nine patients in the pre-COVID-19 group received SB. SB provides an advantage in dealing with chronic RRD with a subretinal brand and atrophic breaks [43], but 11.3% of patients were reported to undergo the secondary procedure to deal with an unattached retina [46]. PPV is reserved for complicated cases and is often accompanied by retinoctomy and silicone oil tamponade to achieve better outcomes [47, 48]. The requirement of multiple follow-ups concerning the persistence of a detached retina, a fear of PVR progression [49] when the break is located near the subretinal brand, and bad toleration of the SB procedure under local anesthesia may partly account for the changes of treatment towards PPV.

In conclusion, due to general anesthesia restrictions and limitations on clinics and operative resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic, surgeons were more conservative with certain kinds of RRD cases.

The treatment pattern was changed by the presurgery characteristics and surgeons’ considerations during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Contrary to the previous report of higher prevalence of secondary surgeries during the national conference [13], we achieved a comparable VA outcome and retinal attachment rate in the COVID-19 pandemic group compared with the pre-COVID-19 group, which may suggest that adjustment on the treatment pattern according to patient characteristics and RRD service is effective in treating RRD patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Limitations

Our study’s principal limitation was that this was a retrospective study in a tertiary eye center. In pre-COVID-19, there was a high percentage of complicated patients from cities other than Beijing for consultation at our center. Conversely, in the COVID-19 Pandemic, more local patients came to our center due to Beijing’s lockdown. Patient selection bias is unavoidable. A delay in the treatment can produce a worse clinical situation due to the progression of PVR, CD [50], which are known as the most common cause of failure in retinal detachment surgery [49, 51]. We failed to show the effect of presurgery waiting time and severity of PVR on the outcome of surgery or the choice of surgery. The patients selection bias between the two groups may take account for it. The study was carried out in Beijing Tongren Eye Center, where the retinal specialists were trained on PPV and SB. It cannot reflect China’s procedure choice during the COVID-19 Pandemic, but can reflect Beijing’s condition as the Beijing Tongren eye center was the only center in Beijing that provides RRD service during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Since the most of surgeons thought the follow-up for the IOP control in steroid-related glaucoma was difficult in the COVID-19 Pandemic, there may be treatment bias related to use of intravitreal steroid between the two groups [49, 51].

Conclusions

The treatment patterns were mainly based on the patients’ presurgery characteristics. The COVID-19 Pandemic impacts the patients’ presurgery characteristics and surgeons’ considerations, which can lead to increased PPV and decreased SB in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The adjustments on the treatment lead to comparable surgery outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is (are) available in zhao, meng (2021), “Impact of Covid-19 on RRD”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: https://doi.org/10.17632/dwx3w4mct2.1.

Abbreviations

AIC:

Akaike information criterion

CD:

Choroidal detachment

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease

BCVA:

Visual acuity

IOP:

Intraocular pressure

IOL:

Intraocular lens

MH:

Macular hole

PM:

Pathological myopia

PVD:

Posterior vitreous detachment

PVR:

Proliferative vitreoretinopathy

ROC curve:

Receiver operating characteristic curve

RRD:

Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

RD:

Retinal detachment

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Mizuno S, Kunisawa S, Sasaki N, Fushimi K, Imanaka Y. In-hospital mortality and treatment patterns in acute myocardial infarction patients admitted during national cardiology meeting dates. Int J Cardiol. 2016;220:929–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borowicz D, Nowomiejska K, Nowakowska D, Brzozowska A, Toro MD, Avitabile T, et al. Functional and morphological results of treatment of macula-on and macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with pars plana vitrectomy and sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1120-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Znaor L, Medic A, Binder S, Vucinovic A, Marin Lovric J, Puljak L. Pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckling for repairing simple rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3(3):Cd009562. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009562.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nishitsuka K, Kawasaki R, Yamakiri K, Baba T, Koto T, Yamashita H, et al. Preoperative factors to select vitrectomy or scleral buckling for retinal detachment in microincision vitrectomy era. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(9):1871–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04744-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Bussel EM, van der Valk R, Bijlsma WR, La Heij EC. Impact of duration of macula-off retinal detachment on visual outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. Retina. 2014;34(10):1917–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000000296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Park DH, Choi KS, Sun HJ, Lee SJ. Factors associated with visual outcome after macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery. Retina. 2018;38(1):137–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mitry D, Awan MA, Borooah S, Syrogiannis A, Lim-Fat C, Campbell H, et al. Long-term visual acuity and the duration of macular detachment: findings from a prospective population-based study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(2):149–52. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Enders P, Schick T, Kemper C, Schaub F, Fauser S. Effect of symptom duration until surgery on first-year outcome in Pseudophakic primary Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Ophthalmologica. 2017;237(2):73–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tseng W, Cortez RT, Ramirez G, Stinnett S, Jaffe GJ. Prevalence and risk factors for proliferative vitreoretinopathy in eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment but no previous vitreoretinal surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(6):1105–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2004.02.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gu YH, Ke GJ, Wang L, Gu QH, Zhou EL, Pan HB, et al. Risk factors of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment associated with choroidal detachment in Chinese patients. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(7):989–93. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2016.07.09.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jena AB, Prasad V, Goldman DP, Romley J. Mortality and treatment patterns among patients hospitalized with acute cardiovascular conditions during dates of national cardiology meetings. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):237–44. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jena AB, Olenski A, Blumenthal DM, Yeh RW, Goldman DP, Romley J. Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality During Dates of National Interventional Cardiology Meetings. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(6). https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.008230.

  13. Vail D, Al-Moujahed A, Callaway NF, Ji MH, Ludwig CA, Moshfeghi DM. Timing and reoperation rate of Rhegmatogenous retinal detachments occurring during major ophthalmology meetings. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51(6):328–37. https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20200603-03.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo CG, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(9):e475–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30164-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cummings AB, Gildea C, Brézin AP, Malyugin BE, Evren Kemer O, Kermani O, et al. Impact on refractive surgery due to increasing use of personal protection equipment: insights from EUROCOVCAT group. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;11206721211018641. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211018641.

  16. Dolar-Szczasny J, Toro MD, Dworzańska A, Wójtowicz T, Korona-Glowniak I, Sawicki R, et al. Ocular Involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in a Polish Cohort of COVID-19-Positive Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062916.

  17. World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 145(2020). Geneva. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200613-covid-19-sitrep 145.pdf?sfvrsn=bb7c1dc9_2. Accessed 21 Sept 2021.

  18. Toro MD, Brézin AP, Burdon M, Cummings AB, Evren Kemer O, Malyugin BE, et al. Early impact of COVID-19 outbreak on eye care: insights from EUROCOVCAT group. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(1):5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672120960339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tognetto D, Brézin AP, Cummings AB, Malyugin BE, Evren Kemer O, Prieto I, et al. Rethinking Elective Cataract Surgery Diagnostics, Assessments, and Tools after the COVID-19 Pandemic Experience and Beyond: Insights from the EUROCOVCAT Group. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020;10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121035.

  20. Elfalah M, AlRyalat SA, Toro MD, Rejdak R, Zweifel S, Nazzal R, et al. Delayed Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy for patients during the COVID-19 lockdown: An ethical endeavor. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:661–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S289068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Toro M, Choragiewicz T, Posarelli C, Figus M, Rejdak R. Early impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the availability of cornea donors: warnings and recommendations. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2879–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S260960.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bajka A, Wiest MRJ, Hamann T, Toro MD, Zweifel SA. Assessment of Patients' Confidence Regarding a New Triage Concept in a Medical Retina Clinic during the First COVID-19 Outbreak. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115846.

  23. Reeves MG, Pershing S, Afshar AR. Choice of primary Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair method in US commercially insured and Medicare advantage patients, 2003-2016. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;196:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.08.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Awad M, Poostchi A, Orr G, Kumudhan D, Zaman A, Wilde C. Delayed presentation and increased prevalence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachments presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Eye (Lond). 2020:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-1056-0.

  25. Patel LG, Peck T, Starr MR, Ammar MJ, Khan MA, Yonekawa Y, et al. Clinical presentation of Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a historical cohort study. Ophthalmology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.009.

  26. Agha R, Abdall-Razak A, Crossley E, Dowlut N, Iosifidis C, Mathew G. STROCSS 2019 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2019;72:156–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferrara M, Romano V, Steel DH, Gupta R, Iovino C, van Dijk EHC, et al. Reshaping ophthalmology training after COVID-19 pandemic. Eye (Lond). 2020;34(11):2089–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-1061-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Park SJ, Cho SC, Choi NK, Park KH, Woo SJ. Age, sex, and time-specific trends in surgical approaches for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a Nationwide, population-based study using the national claim registry. Retina. 2017;37(12):2326–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Toro MD, Reibaldi M, Avitabile T, Bucolo C, Salomone S, Rejdak R, et al. MicroRNAs in the vitreous humor of patients with retinal detachment and a different grading of proliferative Vitreoretinopathy: a pilot study. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9(6):23. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.6.23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Adelman RA, Parnes AJ, Sipperley JO, Ducournau D. Strategy for the management of complex retinal detachments: the European vitreo-retinal society retinal detachment study report 2. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1809–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Velez-Montoya R, Jacobo-Oceguera P, Flores-Preciado J, Dalma-Weiszhausz J, Guerrero-Naranjo J, Salcedo-Villanueva G, et al. Primary repair of moderate severity Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a critical decision-making algorithm. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2016;5(1):18–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Heath Jeffery RC, Young B, Atkins W, Shadbolt B, Allen PJ, Essex RW. Analysis of time to failure after retinal detachment surgery. Retina. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000002715.

  33. Yu Y, An M, Mo B, Yang Z, Liu W. Risk factors for choroidal detachment following rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in a chinese population. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0319-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Charteris DG. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy: revised concepts of pathogenesis and adjunctive treatment. Eye (Lond). 2020;34(2):241–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0699-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Adelman RA, Parnes AJ, Michalewska Z, Ducournau D. Clinical variables associated with failure of retinal detachment repair: the European vitreo-retinal society retinal detachment study report number 4. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(9):1715–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yu Y, Yue Y, Tong N, Zheng P, Liu W, An M. Anatomic outcomes and prognostic factors of Vitrectomy in patients with primary Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment associated with Choroidal detachment. Curr Eye Res. 2019;44(3):329–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2018.1540705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Azad SV, Takkar B, Bhatia I, Azad R. Lincoff rules are not followed in retinal detachment with posterior breaks and attached cortical vitreous. Retin Cases Brief Rep. 2019;13(1):21–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/icb.0000000000000522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang A, Snead MP. Scleral buckling-a brief historical overview and current indications. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(3):467–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04562-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tosi GM, Balestrazzi A, Baiocchi S, Tarantello A, Cevenini G, Marigliani D, et al. Complex retinal detachment in phakic patients: Previtrectomy phacoemulsification versus combined Phacovitrectomy. Retina. 2017;37(4):630–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000001221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Treumer F, Bunse A, Rudolf M, Roider J. Pars plana vitrectomy, phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. Comparison of clinical complications in a combined versus two-step surgical approach. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244(7):808–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-0146-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sizmaz S, Esen E, Isik P, Cam B, Demircan N. Outcome and complications of combined phacoemulsification and 23-gauge pars Plana Vitrectomy. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:7918237. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7918237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tranos PG, Allan B, Balidis M, Vakalis A, Asteriades S, Anogeianakis G, et al. Comparison of postoperative refractive outcome in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy vs cataract surgery following vitrectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(5):987–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04583-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Park SW, Lee JJ, Lee JE. Scleral buckling in the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: patient selection and perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1605–15. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S153717.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Malagola R, Pannarale L, Tortorella P, Arrico L. Drainage of subretinal fluid during scleral buckling surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. G Chir. 2015;36(3):106–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Auriol S, Mahieu L, Arné JL, Mathis V. Risk factors for development of choroidal detachment after scleral buckling procedure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(3):428–32.e421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ghasemi Falavarjani K, Alemzadeh SA, Modarres M, Parvaresh MM, Hashemi M, Naseripour M, et al. Scleral buckling surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with subretinal proliferation. Eye (Lond). 2015;29(4):509–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2014.341.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Mancino R, Aiello F, Ciuffoletti E, Di Carlo E, Cerulli A, Nucci C. Inferior retinotomy and silicone oil tamponade for recurrent inferior retinal detachment and grade C PVR in eyes previously treated with pars plana vitrectomy or scleral buckle. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0167-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Dimitrios B, Krassas G, Dettoraki M, Lavaris A, Sideri AM, Droutsas K, et al. Large Retinectomies for retinal detachment complicated by proliferative Vitreoretinopathy: anatomical and functional outcome of silicone oil versus Perfluoropropane gas. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2679–86. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S241479.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gagliano C, Toro MD, Avitabile T, Stella S, Uva MG. Intravitreal steroids for the prevention of PVR after surgery for retinal detachment. Curr Pharm Des. 2015;21(32):4698–702. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612821666150909100212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhao M, Li J, She H, Liu N. The risk factors of the progression of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment on patients with the fourteen-day quarantine in the early period of COVID-19 outbreak. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01985-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Reibaldi M, Russo A, Longo A, Bonfiglio V, Uva MG, Gagliano C, et al. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with a high risk of proliferative Vitreoretinopathy treated with Episcleral surgery and an Intravitreal dexamethasone 0.7-mg implant. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2013;4(1):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351176.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge all the healthcare workers in our department who made the RRD service possible during the Pandemic. Dr. Ningpu Liu is the leader of the RRD service during the Pandemic. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, his decisions and actions were full of intelligence and courage, caring for both the patients and colleagues, showing what a real doctor should do. It is a great honor to work with him and work in this team to provide service for patients.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectorsAuthor information.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No1. Dongjiaominxiang street, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China

    Jipeng Li, Meng Zhao & Haicheng She

Authors
  1. Jipeng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meng Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haicheng She
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. M Zhao collected and analyzed the data; JP Li was the one major contributor in writing the manuscript. HC She reviewed and revised the manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the medical ethics committee of Beijing Tongren Hospital. The reference number is TRECKY 2020-071. The need for written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design and use of deidentified patients data. This was also approved by the medical ethics committee of Beijing Tongren Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Zhao, M. & She, H. The impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treatment patterns. BMC Ophthalmol 21, 372 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02127-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02127-7

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us