BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether age is a prognostic factor in rhegmatogenousretinal detachment (RRD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patient population was divided into two groups according to age at onset...BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether age is a prognostic factor in rhegmatogenousretinal detachment (RRD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patient population was divided into two groups according to age at onset of RRD (juvenile RRD=younger than 18 years and senile RRD=65 years and older). The juvenile RRD group consisted of 35 patients and the senile RRD group consisted of 39 patients. RESULTS: There were statistically higher incidences of male patients, trauma, subretinal fibrosis, and myopia in the juvenile RRD group compared with the senile RRD group. In addition, there were statistical differences in the break characteristics, extent of RRD, and severity of proliferative vitreoretinopathy between the juvenile and senile RRD groups. However, no statistical differences were evident in the final retinal reattachment rate (88.6%vs 94.9%; P=.413) or the final visual outcome (P= .902) between juvenile RRD and senile RRD. CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics between juvenile and senile RRD are different. Although delayed diagnosis is common, the final surgical outcome in juvenile RRD is as promising as in senile RRD.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether age is a prognostic factor in rhegmatogenousretinal detachment (RRD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patient population was divided into two groups according to age at onset of RRD (juvenile RRD=younger than 18 years and senile RRD=65 years and older). The juvenile RRD group consisted of 35 patients and the senile RRD group consisted of 39 patients. RESULTS: There were statistically higher incidences of male patients, trauma, subretinal fibrosis, and myopia in the juvenile RRD group compared with the senile RRD group. In addition, there were statistical differences in the break characteristics, extent of RRD, and severity of proliferative vitreoretinopathy between the juvenile and senile RRD groups. However, no statistical differences were evident in the final retinal reattachment rate (88.6%vs 94.9%; P=.413) or the final visual outcome (P= .902) between juvenile RRD and senile RRD. CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics between juvenile and senile RRD are different. Although delayed diagnosis is common, the final surgical outcome in juvenile RRD is as promising as in senile RRD.
