RATES OF RECURRENT RETINAL DETACHMENT AFTER VAGINAL VERSUS CESAREAN DELIVERIES: A Retrospective Analysis and Review of the Literature

Asaf Shemer*, Keren Zloto, Ziv Peretz, Eva Eting, Lior Or, Eran Pras, Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the risk of a retinal redetachment in women after vaginal delivery versus cesarean delivery. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with retinal detachment (RD) who had later delivered in one tertiary medical center. Recurrence rates of RD were obtained from medical charts. Results: A total of 967 women with RDs were evaluated, and 66 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of RD was 22.64 ± 5.81 SD years and 21.75 ± 5.47 SD years in the vaginal delivery group and the cesarean section group, respectively. None of the patients had a history of eye surgery or traumatic eye injury before the event of RD. In all patients, the detached retina was surgically reattached. Retinal detachment was not recorded in the fellow eye during follow-up. We report four cases of redetachment after birth in four women. In our study, there was a 5% rate (n = 2) of RD after a vaginal delivery as compared with a 7.5% (n = 2) redetachment rate for patients after a cesarean delivery (P = 0.654). Conclusion: The risk of a redetachment of the retina in women is not increased after a vaginal delivery as compared with a cesarean delivery. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no ophthalmic benefit in a cesarean section for a woman with prior RD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)78-82
Number of pages5
JournalRetina
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2024

Keywords

  • cesarean
  • mode of delivery
  • redetachment
  • retina
  • retinal detachment
  • vaginal delivery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'RATES OF RECURRENT RETINAL DETACHMENT AFTER VAGINAL VERSUS CESAREAN DELIVERIES: A Retrospective Analysis and Review of the Literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this