Aim To characterise the predisposing pathology and clinical features in the fellow eyes of patients recruited as part of the Scottish Retinal Detachment Study.
Methods The Scottish Retinal Detachment Study was a 2-year prospectively recruited population-based epidemiology study that sought to recruit all incident cases of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in Scotland.
Results A total of 1202 incident cases of primary RRD were recruited in Scotland, over a 2-year period and in 94% (1130 cases) detailed data on the clinical features of fellow eyes with RRD were available. Full-thickness retinal breaks were found in 8.4% (95/1130) of fellow eyes on presentation. Lattice degeneration was present in 14.5% (164/1130) of fellow eyes. Thirteen per cent (148/1130) of affected fellow eyes had a best corrected visual acuity of 6/18 or worse with previous RRD, the second most common cause of poor vision. Overall, 7.3% (88/1202) of cases had RRD in both eyes; 60% of cases with consecutive bilateral RRD presented before the macula were affected.
Conclusions Rhegmatogenous pathology in the fellow eye represents an important threat to vision. Fellow-eye detachments are more common in pseudophakic individuals and those with a more myopic refractive error. Fellow-eye RRD has a greater likelihood of prompt presentation.
- retinal detachment
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This study was supported by a major ophthalmology grant from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh; the Royal Blind School, Edinburgh/Scottish War Blinded; the W.H. Ross Foundation for the Prevention of Blindness and the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland (CZB/4/705). The authors acknowledge (a proportion of their) financial support from the Department of Health through the award from the National Institute for Health Research to Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology for a Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Multi-Centre Research and Ethics Committee, Scotland (MREC-06/MRE00/19).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.