ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With a decline in the use of scleral buckling for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair in recent years, this review seeks to provide a summary of the most recent research findings regarding the role of scleral buckling in the repair of RRD. RECENT FINDINGS: Many recent studies have compared visual and anatomic outcomes between scleral buckling and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for RRD repair. Some suggest superior outcomes with primary scleral buckling, particularly in younger, phakic patients, and in association with other risk factors that we review. Children do best with primary scleral buckling surgery. Functionally, scleral buckling may also result in lower rates of retinal displacement compared to PPV. When PPV is necessary, a supplemental buckle may benefit certain patients, while the advantage remains unclear in other clinical scenarios and necessitates further investigation. SUMMARY: Scleral buckling is an important technique for the repair of RRD and it is crucial to continue training retina surgeons in this technique to maximize patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness and readability of the medical knowledge provided by ChatGPT-4, an artificial intelligence-powered conversational search engine, regarding common vitreoretinal surgeries for retinal detachments (RDs), macular holes (MHs), and epiretinal membranes (ERMs). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: This study did not involve any human participants. METHODS: We created lists of common questions about the definition, prevalence, visual impact, diagnostic methods, surgical and nonsurgical treatment options, postoperative information, surgery-related complications, and visual prognosis of RD, MH, and ERM, and asked each question 3 times on the online ChatGPT-4 platform. The data for this cross-sectional study were recorded on April 25, 2023. Two independent retina specialists graded the appropriateness of the responses. Readability was assessed using Readable, an online readability tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The "appropriateness" and "readability" of the answers generated by ChatGPT-4 bot. RESULTS: Responses were consistently appropriate in 84.6% (33/39), 92% (23/25), and 91.7% (22/24) of the questions related to RD, MH, and ERM, respectively. Answers were inappropriate at least once in 5.1% (2/39), 8% (2/25), and 8.3% (2/24) of the respective questions. The average Flesch Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease Score were 14.1 ± 2.6 and 32.3 ± 10.8 for RD, 14 ± 1.3 and 34.4 ± 7.7 for MH, and 14.8 ± 1.3 and 28.1 ± 7.5 for ERM. These scores indicate that the answers are difficult or very difficult to read for the average lay person and college graduation would be required to understand the material. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the answers provided by ChatGPT-4 were consistently appropriate. However, ChatGPT and other natural language models in their current form are not a source of factual information. Improving the credibility and readability of responses, especially in specialized fields, such as medicine, is a critical focus of research. Patients, physicians, and laypersons should be advised of the limitations of these tools for eye- and health-related counseling. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
