Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with persistent vitreous floaters (VF) in phakic (56.7% ) or pseudophakic (43.3% ) eyes. Subjects and Methods: A retrospective study of 24 consecutive patients (30 eyes) who underwent a 2- port-PPV using indirect opthalmoscopy between 1992 and 2003 was carried out. Main outcome measures were postoperative visual acuity (PVA), incidence of postoperative complications and patient satisfaction, which has been assessed retrospectively using a detailed questionnaire Results: Symptoms resolved in all patients. PVA was significantly better (0.91 ± 0.2 vs. 0.84 ± 0.2 preoperative visual acuity) or equal in 25 patients (83.3% ). One pseudophakic patient (3.3% ) experienced a retinal detachment 48 months after surgery. In 5 of 17 phakic eyes (35% ) a cataract extraction had to be performed during the follow-up period. All patients were satisfied with their overall visual function. Discussion: This study shows PPV to be a safe and effective primary treatment for visually disturbing VF. In spite of the small number of cases with a lower PVA (5 eyes/16.7% ), which in the most severe case corresponded to a reduction of VA from 1.0 to 0.6 due to a nuclear sclerosis of the lens, all patients were satisfied. As vitreoretinal complications may occur, a critical patient selection and a careful preoperative assessment of specific risks of vitrectomy are mandatory. Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with persistent vitreous floaters (VF) in phakic (56.7%) or pseudophakic (43.3%) eyes. Subjects and Methods: A retrospective study of 24 consecutive patients (30 eyes) who underwent a 2- port-PPV using indirect opthalmoscopy between 1992 and 2003 was carried out. Main outcome measures were postoperative visual acuity (PVA), incidence of postoperative complications and patient satisfaction, which has been administered retrospectively Using a detailed questionnaire for all patients. PVA was significantly better (0.91 ± 0.2 vs. 0.84 ± 0.2 preoperative visual acuity) or equal in 25 patients (83.3%). One pseudophakic patient (3.3%) experienced a retinal detachment 48 months after surgery. In 5 of 17 phakic eyes (35%) a cataract extraction had to be performed during the follow-up period. All patients were satisfied with their overall visual function. Discussion: This study shows PPV to be a safe and effective primary treatment for visually disturbing VF. In spite of the small number of cases with a lower PVA (5 eyes / 16.7%), which in the most severe case was assigned to a reduction of VA from 1.0 to 0.6 due to a nuclear sclerosis of the lens, all patients were satisfied. As vitreoretinal complications may occur, a critical patient selection and a careful preoperative assessment of specific risks of vitrectomy are mandatory.