Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery to restore normal anatomy and to stabilize or improve vision. PVR usually occurs in association with recurrent RD (that is, after initial retinal re-attachment surgery), but occasionally may be associated with primary RD. Either way, for both circumstances a tamponade agent (gas or silicone oil) is needed during surgery to reduce the rate of postoperative recurrent RD. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the relative safety and effectiveness of various tamponade agents used with surgery for RD complicated by PVR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2019), Embase (January 1980 to January 2019), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2019), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on participants undergoing surgery for RD associated with PVR that compared various tamponade agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results independently. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs (601 participants) that provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Three RCTs provided data on visual acuity, two reported on macular attachment, one on retinal reattachment and another two on adverse events such as RD, worsening visual acuity and intraocular pressure. Study Characteristics Participants' characteristics varied across studies and across intervention groups, with an age range between 21 to 89 years, and were predominantly men. The Silicone Study was conducted in the USA and consisted of two RCTs: (silicone oil versus sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas tamponades; 151 participants) and (silicone oil versus perfluropropane (C3F8) gas tamponades; 271 participants). The third RCT compared heavy silicone oil (a mixture of perfluorohexyloctane (F6H8) and silicone oil) with standard silicone oil (either 1000 centistokes or 5000 centistokes; 94 participants). The fourth RCT compared 1000 centistokes with 5000 centistokes silicone oil in 85 participants. We assessed most RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for most 'Risk of bias' domains. Findings Although SF6 gas was reported to be associated with worse anatomic and visual outcomes than was silicone oil at one year (quantitative data not reported), at two years, silicone oil compared to SF6 gas showed no evidence of a difference in visual acuity (33% versus 51%; risk ratio (RR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.66; 1 RCT, 87 participants; low-certainty evidence). At one year, another RCT comparing silicone oil and C3F8 gas found no evidence of a difference in visual acuity between the two groups (41% versus 39%; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In a third RCT, participants treated with standard silicone oil compared to those receiving heavy silicone oil also showed no evidence of a difference in the change in visual acuity at one year, measured on logMAR scale ( mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.29; 1 RCT; 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). The fourth RCT with 5000-centistoke and 1000-centistoke comparisons did not report data on visual acuity. For macular attachment, participants treated with silicone oil may probably experience more favorable outcomes than did participants who received SF6 at both one year (quantitative data not reported) and two years (58% versus 79%; RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86; 1 RCT; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence). In another RCT, silicone oil compared to C3F8 at one year found no evidence of difference in macular attachment (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 1 RCT, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT that compared 5000 centistokes to 1000 centistoke reported that retinal reattachment was successful in 67 participants (78.8%) with first surgery and 79 participants (92.9%) with the second surgery, and no evidence of between-group difference (1 RCT; 85 participants; low-certainty evidence). The fourth RCT that compared standard silicone oil with heavy silicone oil did not report on macular attachment. Adverse events In one RCT (86 participants), those receiving standard 1000 centistoke silicone oil compared with those of the 5000 centistoke silicone oil showed no evidence of a difference in intraocular pressure elevation at 18 months (24% versus 22%; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence), visually significant cataract (49% versus 64%; RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.89; low-certainty evidence), and incidence of retina detachment after the removal of silicone oil (RR 0.36 95% CI 0.08 to 1.67; low-certainty evidence). Another RCT that compared standard silicone oil with heavy silicone oil suggests no difference in retinal detachment at one year (25% versus 22%; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.48; 1 RCT; 186 participants; low-certainty evidence). Retinal detachment was not reported in the RCTs that compared silicone oil versus SF6 and silicone oil versus to C3F8. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between C3F8 and silicone oil. Silicone oil may be better than SF6 for macular attachment and other short-term outcomes. The choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient. The use of either C3F8 or standard silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Heavy silicone oil, which is not available for routine clinical use in the USA, may not demonstrate evidence of superiority over standard silicone oil.

Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery to restore normal anatomy and to stabilize or improve vision. PVR usually occurs in association with recurrent RD (that is, after initial retinal re-attachment surgery) but occasionally may be associated with primary RD. Either way, a tamponade agent (gas or silicone oil) is needed during surgery to reduce the rate of postoperative recurrent RD. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the relative safety and effectiveness of various tamponade agents used with surgery for retinal detachment (RD) complicated by proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing surgery for RD associated with PVR that compared various tamponade agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results independently. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 516 participants from three RCTs. One study was conducted in the USA and consisted of two trials: the first trial randomized 151 adults to receive either silicone oil or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas tamponades; and the second trial randomized 271 adults to receive either silicone oil or perfluropropane (C3F8) gas tamponades. The third trial was a multi-center international trial and randomized 94 participants (age range not specified) to receive heavy silicone oil (a mixture of perfluorohexyloctane (F6H8) and silicone oil) versus standard silicone oil (either 1000 centistokes or 5000 centistokes, per the surgeon's preference).In participants with RD associated with PVR, outcomes after pars plana vitrectomy and infusion of either silicone oil, perfluropropane gas, or sulfur hexafluoride gas appeared comparable for a broad variety of cases. There were no significant differences between silicone oil and perfluoropropane gas in terms of the proportion of participants achieving at least 5/200 visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.31) or achieving macular attachment (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15) at a minimum of one year. Although sulfur hexafluoride gas was reported to be associated with significantly worse anatomic and visual outcomes than was silicone oil at one year (quantitative data not reported), there were no significant differences between silicone oil and sulfur hexafluoride gas in terms of achieving at least 5/200 visual acuity at two years (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.93 to 2.66). For macular attachment, participants treated with silicone oil received significantly more favourable outcomes than did participants who received sulfur hexafluoride at both one year (quantitative data not reported) and two years (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86). The first two trials did not perform any sample size calculation or power detection. In the third trial, which had a power of 80% to detect differences, heavy silicone oil was not shown to be superior to standard silicone oil. There were no significant differences between standard silicone oil and heavy silicone oil in the change in visual acuity at one year using adjusted mean logMAR visual acuity (mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.29). Adverse events were not reported for the first two trials. For the third trial, only the total number of adverse events was reported, and adverse events for each group were not specified. Of the 94 participants, four died, 26 had recurrent retinal detachment, 22 developed glaucoma, four developed a cataract, and two had capsular fibrosis.All three trials employed adequate methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. None of the trials employed masking of participants and surgeons, and only the third trial masked outcome assessors. The first trial had a large portion of participants excluded from the final analyses, while the other two trials were at low risk of attrition bias. All trials appear to be free of reporting bias. The first two trials were funded by the National Eye Institute, and the third trial was funded by the German Research Foundation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of either perfluropropane or standard silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Because there do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between the two agents, the choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient. Heavy silicone oil, which is not available for routine clinical use in the USA, has not demonstrated evidence of superiority over standard silicone oil.

Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery. During surgery, a tamponade agent is needed to reduce the rate of recurrent retinal detachment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the benefits and adverse outcomes of surgery with various tamponade agents. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin America and Carribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (UKCTG). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 July 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials comparing patients treated with various tamponade agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two individuals screened the search results independently. One study with two trials was eligible for inclusion in the review. MAIN RESULTS: One study with two trials was included in the review. The first trial randomized 151 eyes to receive either silicone oil or sulfur hexafluoride (SF(6)) gas tamponades; the second trial randomized 271 eyes to receive either silicone oil or perfluropropane (C(3)F(8)) gas tamponades. In patients with RD associated with PVR, pars plana vitrectomy and infusion of either silicone oil or perfluropropane gas appear comparable for a broad variety of cases. Sulfur hexafluoride gas was associated with worse anatomic and visual outcomes than either silicone oil or perfluropropane gas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of either C(3)F(8) or silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Because there do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between the two agents, the choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient.

Lack of toxicity of stainless steel retinal tacks during 21 years of follow-up.

Retinal tacks were historically used in the repair of complex retinal detachment associated with giant retinal tear. The authors describe a patient with retinal detachment associated with giant retinal tear who was treated successfully with pars plana vitrectomy, use of stainless steel retinal tacks, endolaser photocoagulation, and gas-fluid exchange. Twenty-one years after treatment, the retina has remained attached, the tacks are in place, and best-corrected visual acuity is 20/30 in the operated eye. Although retinal tacks are no longer used, this case report suggests that intraocular stainless steel may cause minimal or no retinal toxicity during long-term follow-up.

Complications of cataract surgery in eyes filled with silicone oil.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate complications of cataract surgery in eyes filled with silicone oil. METHODS: This retrospective, noncomparative, consecutive case series analyzed medical files of patients with eyes filled with silicone oil undergoing cataract surgery. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation was conducted with or without concurrent silicone oil removal. RESULTS: In this study, 121 eyes of 120 patients were included. In 32 eyes (26.4%) with evident silicone oil microemulsification or silicone oil-associated open-angle glaucoma, silicone oil was removed prior to phacoemulsification through a pars plana incision and no cases of posterior capsular rupture occurred during the subsequent cataract surgery. In the remaining 89 eyes, phacoemulsification was performed with silicone oil in the vitreous cavity. In these eyes, the rate of posterior capsular rupture was 9/89 (10.1%) and the rate of silicone oil migration into the anterior chamber through an apparently intact posterior capsule was 5/89 (5.6%). In 94 eyes (77.7%), an intraocular lens was inserted into the capsular bag, in 3 eyes (2.5%) into the sulcus, and in 1 eye (0.8%) a transscleral suturing was performed. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, complications related to the silicone oil were not uncommon during cataract surgery. In the majority of patients without evident silicone oil microemulsification or silicone oil-associated open-angle glaucoma, cataract surgery and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation were performed while leaving the silicone oil in place.