June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Vitrectomy in patients with uveitis.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Juan Pablo Francos
    Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clínicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Matias Iglicki
    Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clínicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Marcelo Zas
    Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clínicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Carmen N Demetrio
    Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clínicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Cristobal A Couto
    Ophthalmology, Hospital de Clínicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Juan Pablo Francos, None; Matias Iglicki, None; Marcelo Zas, None; Carmen Demetrio, None; Cristobal Couto, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 6171. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Juan Pablo Francos, Matias Iglicki, Marcelo Zas, Carmen N Demetrio, Cristobal A Couto; Vitrectomy in patients with uveitis.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):6171.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate the causes and success rates of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with uveitis.

Methods: Retrospective study of the charts of 15 patients with uveitis (17 eyes) who underwent PPV between the years 2013 and 2014. PPV was performed in the Clinical Hospital of Buenos Aires, José de San Martín. Surgical procedure was throught a conventional 3 port 23 G vitrectomy. We examined surgical indications and success rates, based on visual outcomes, complications and diagnosis in case of vitreous biopsy.

Results: (1) Therapeutic PPV (TV) was performed in 70%, (2) diagnostic PPV (DiV) was performed in 30% of the eyes. Eight eyes (28,6%) underwent a combined cataract and vitreous surgery. Visual acuity (VA) improved in 7 eyes (41%), although the effect was transient in 7% of the cases. VA remained stable in 8 eyes (47%) and decreased in 2 (12%). Post-operative complications were (CMO) in 3 eyes (11%), cataract in 5 eyes (18%) and retinal detachment in 2 eyes (7%). Diagnostic tests were performed in 18 eyes with a success rate of 55%.

Conclusions: In our series of patients with uveitis, a good and stable improvement of VA was found when PPV was performed with ERM peeling and macular hole, while the effect on VA was more transient in the other cases. A good success rate of diagnosis was also found in DiV. However, considering the possible severe complications, diagnostic vitrectomy should be limited to selected cases.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.