In 1978, Parver and Lincoff showed that the bottom edge of an intraocular gas bubble was flat using a glass model [8]. They went on to explore the tamponade effect for equal volumes of air in different-sized cavities using mathematical modeling. They famously pointed out that for a cavity of 21 mm in diameter, a gas bubble of 0.28 ml would provide 90° arc of support to the retina. Clinically, however, we observe that when a small bubble (for example 0.3 ml) is injected into the vitreous cavity (as in pneumatic retinopexy), the bubble remains rounded. It is only after the bubble has expanded that it takes on its typical shape with a flat bottom.
The reason that air bubbles have a rounded shape when very small and a flat-bottomed shape when large is that interfacial energy will have a measurable influence on small bubbles, but is overtaken by floatation forces for larger bubbles. It is therefore important to consider this relationship between the interfacial energetics and floatation forces and their relative influence on the tamponade effect in eyeballs of different axial lengths.
To answer these questions, we used eye models similar to those we have used several times in the past to study the shape and the behavior of intraocular bubbles. For the purpose of this study, the human vitreous cavity was assumed to be a sphere. Essentially, we use a spherical chamber constructed of PMMA and rendered the surface hydrophilic by coating with albumin. We have previously shown that this is a good model for the hydrophilic properties of the retina [2]. The glass model used in the Parver and Lincoff study will have been more hydrophobic, which might explain the difference between their predictions and the clinical experience. It will be more energetically favorable for an air bubble to spread on a glass surface than the hydrophilic retinal surface.
For our experiment, we chose a range of chamber dimensions to mimic the range of sizes that we encounter in patients. Tamponade efficiency was reflected by measuring the maximum height, the height at the level of the meniscus, and calculation of the arc of contact made between the tamponade bubble and the internal surface of the model. We used three tamponade agents: air, silicone oil, and Densiron®. One reason for choosing gaseous and liquid tamponade was the large difference between their floatation forces, thus highlighting the influence of this on the resultant tamponade efficiency and its relation to the size of the eye cavity. That is, one might expect the shape to change more so with an air bubble than with an oil bubble (or vice versa).
Our results showed that the tamponade efficiencies as reflected by the measured dimensions of the bubbles were not significantly different. The tamponade efficiency does not seem to vary, at least in the range of size cavities that we have tested. This applies for air and silicone oil. In the case of air, the bubble is round at the very small volumes that we inject in pneumatic retinopexy. However, the shape quickly changes as the air bubble gets bigger, such that at the volumes that we were testing (0.5-8 ml), the bubbles have similar flat-bottomed shapes.
It remains true that for a given percentage fill, the relative volume involved in the meniscus may be larger in smaller eye cavities. However, in this study, it was not possible to measure any difference in the arc of retinal contact subtended for gas or oils, irrespective of the size of the cavity.
In practice, the findings highlight the fact that whether we use gas or oil, we should try to achieve the greatest percentage fill if we wish to obtain the maximal tamponade effect. This means that a complete vitrectomy is desirable, because any remaining vitreous gel might become compressed by the tamponade agents (gas or oil)[9, 10], giving rise to an increased capacity or an under-fill, leaving large parts of the retina unsupported [2]. This applies irrespective of the size of the globe that we are treating.