Search
Search
Carl Regillo, MD, Timothy Murray, MD, MBA
Show Description +
Carl Regillo, MD, reviews the pros and cons of using perfluorocarbon liquids for both primary and complicated retinal detachments and explains how, although it can be used to ensure the best possible macular anatomy and visual outcomes, use of perfluorocarbon liquids still carries the risk of retention under the macula.
Posted: 3/24/2020
Carl Regillo, MD, Timothy Murray, MD, MBA
Carl Regillo, MD, reviews the pros and cons of using perfluorocarbon liquids for both primary and complicated retinal detachments and explains how, although it can be used to ensure the best possible macular anatomy and visual outcomes, use of perfluorocarbon liquids still carries the risk of retention under the macula.
Posted: 3/24/2020
Bryn Mawr Communications, LLC, and Eyetube.net are not affiliated with the official program of ARDS: 2020.
Please log in to leave a comment.
Comments
Just Now
Ramana Moorthy
4 years ago
1. Use of PFO/PFDs is a significant operative expense line item in the outpatient surgery center setting. So I would use it jusdiciously exactly as Dr. Regillo pointed out. 2. Recent popularity of PFO/PFD use for temporary (extended up to 10-14 days max) tamponade for complex inferior RD with PVR and recalcitrant macular holes must be weighed against post operative risks such as intraocular inflammation, toxicity to intraocular tissues, added surgical costs, time , and valuable OR resources (with repeat PPV for removal), and most importantly patient safety 3. There is still the need to have a non-toxic , non inflammatory alternative to perfluorocarbon liquids with similar optical and density characteristics. If developed this would be a game changer in VR surgery