A new heavy internal tamponade in vitreoretinal surgery: an in vitro study

Vitreous Substitutes from Bench to the Operating Room in a Translational Approach: Review and Future Endeavors in Vitreoretinal Surgery

Vitreous substitutes are indispensable tools in vitreoretinal surgery. The two crucial functions of these substitutes are their ability to displace intravitreal fluid from the retinal surface and to allow the retina to adhere to the retinal pigment epithelium. Today, vitreoretinal surgeons can choose among a plethora of vitreous tamponades, and the tamponade of choice might be difficult to determine in the ever-expanding range of possibilities for a favorable outcome. The currently available vitreous substitutes have disadvantages that need to be addressed to improve the surgical outcome achievable today. Herein, the fundamental physical and chemical proprieties of all vitreous substitutes are reported, and their use and clinical applications are described alongside some surgical techniques of intra-operative manipulation. The major upcoming developments in vitreous substitutes are extensively discussed, keeping a translational perspective throughout. Conclusions on future perspectives are derived through an in-depth analysis of what is lacking today in terms of desired outcomes and biomaterials technology.

Substitutes and Colloidal System for Vitreous Replacement and Drug Delivery: Recent Progress and Future Prospective

Vitreoretinal surgeries for ocular diseases such as complicated retinal detachment, diabetic retinopathy, macular holes and ocular trauma has led to the development of various tamponades over the years in search for an ideal vitreous substitute. Current clinically used tamponade agents such as air, perfluorocarbons, silicone oil and expansile gases serve only as a short-term solution and harbors various disadvantages. However, an ideal long-term substitute is yet to be discovered and recent research emphasizes on the potential of polymeric hydrogels as an ideal vitreous substitute. This review highlights the recent progress in the field of vitreous substitution. Suitability and adverse effects of various tamponade agents in present day clinical use and biomaterials in the experimental phase have been outlined and discussed. In addition, we introduced the anatomy and functions of the native vitreous body and the pathological conditions which require vitreous replacement.

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.

Vitreous substitutes: the present and the future

Vitreoretinal surgery has advanced in numerous directions during recent years. The removal of the vitreous body is one of the main characteristics of this surgical procedure. Several molecules have been tested in the past to fill the vitreous cavity and to mimic its functions. We here review the currently available vitreous substitutes, focusing on their molecular properties and functions, together with their adverse effects. Afterwards we describe the characteristics of the ideal vitreous substitute. The challenges facing every ophthalmology researcher are to reach a long-term intraocular permanence of vitreous substitute with total inertness of the molecule injected and the control of inflammatory reactions. We report new polymers with gelification characteristics and smart hydrogels representing the future of vitreoretinal surgery. Finally, we describe the current studies on vitreous regeneration and cell cultures to create new intraocular gels with optimal biocompatibility and rheological properties.

Perfluorocarbon liquid: its application in vitreoretinal surgery and related ocular inflammation

The application of perfluorocarbon liquids has been well acclaimed in vitreoretinal surgery. Its unique physical properties make it an ideal intraoperative tool to improve the efficiency and safety of surgical procedures in complicated cases. The main functions of perfluorocarbon liquids in vitreoretinal surgery include relocating and fixing the detached retina, displacing the subretinal and subchoroidal to fluid anteriorly, revealing proliferative vitreous retinopathy (PVR) for further maneuvers, protecting the macula from exposure to chemicals with potential toxicity, and assisting the removal of foreign body. The related clinical applications include retinal detachment with severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy, giant tear, diabetic retinopathy (DR), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and posterior dislocated crystalline and intraocular lenses. The application of perfluorocarbon liquids has been expended over the past fewer years. Several PFCLs related ocular inflammations have been observed in in vitro studies, animal studies, and clinical follow-up. The complete removal of PFCLs is recommended at the end of the surgery in most cases.

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.

F6H8 as an Intraoperative Tool and F6H8/Silicone Oil as a Postoperative Tamponade in Inferior Retinal Detachment with Inferior PVR

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perfluorohexyloctane (F6H8) for intraoperative flattening of the retina and of F6H8/silicone oil (SO) 1000 cSt as a postoperative tamponade for inferior retinal detachment with inferior proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy using F6H8 as an intraoperative tool to flatten the retina. At the end of the surgery a direct partial exchange between F6H8 and SO 1000 cSt was performed, tamponing the eye with different ratios of F6H8/SO (70/30, 60/40, 50/50, 40/30, and 30/70). Anatomical and functional results and complications were evaluated over the follow-up period (mean 22.63 months). Results. F6H8 was efficacious for intraoperative flattening of the retina. Twenty-one of the 22 patients achieved a complete retinal reattachment. Postoperative visual acuity (VA) ranged from light perception to 20/70, with 72% of patients obtaining VA better than 20/400. No emulsification/inflammation was observed whatever the ratio of F6H8/SO used. With higher ratios of F6H8/SO (70/30 and 60/40) cloudiness of the tamponade was observed. A transparent mixture was present with all the other ratios. Conclusions. The surgical technique adopted is very simple and safe. The optimal F6H8/SO ratio seems to be between 50/50 and 30/70.

Vitreous substitutes: a comprehensive review

Vitreoretinal disorders constitute a significant portion of treatable ocular disease. Advances in vitreoretinal surgery have included the development and characterization of suitable substitutes for the vitreous. Air, balanced salt solutions, perfluorocarbons, expansile gases, and silicone oil serve integral roles in modern vitreoretinal surgery. Vitreous substitutes vary widely in their properties, serve different clinical functions, and present different shortcomings. Permanent vitreous replacement has been attempted with collagen, hyaluronic acid, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, and natural hydrogel polymers. None, however, have proven to be clinically viable. A long-term vitreous substitute remains to be found, and recent research suggests promise in the area of synthetic polymers. Here we review the currently available vitreous substitutes, as well those in the experimental phase. We classify these compounds based on their functionality, composition, and properties. We also discuss the clinical use, advantages, and shortcomings of the various substitutes. In addition we define the ideal vitreous substitute and highlight the need for a permanent substitute with long-term viability and compatibility. Finally, we attempt to define the future role of biomaterials research and the various functions they may serve in the area of vitreous substitutes.

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.