Vision loss after detachment of the neurosensory retina is a complex process which is not fully understood. Clinical factors have been identified which contribute to loss of macular function after retinal detachment and laboratory studies have played an important role in understanding the cellular and subcellular pathological processes which underlie the loss of visual function. As clinical imaging has advanced, multiple studies have focused on identifying and correlating clinicopathological features with visual outcomes in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence, optical coherence tomography angiography and adaptive optics studies have contributed to the understanding of the anatomical changes in relation to clinical outcomes. A clear understanding of the macular pathology of retinal detachment is fundamental to develop strategies to improve outcomes in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and analogous retinal diseases where macular neurosensory retinal detachment is part of the pathology. This review assesses the evidence from experimental and pathological studies together with clinical imaging analyses (optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence, optical coherence tomography angiography and adaptive optics) and the contribution of these studies to our understanding of visual outcomes.
- treatment surgery
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors RA and DC conceived and designed the review, analysed and interpreted the literature, drafted the manuscript and made critical revision of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.