Abstract
Introduction
Unexplained visual loss after removal of silicone oil from the eye has been described. The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of unexplained loss of visual acuity after SO removal and to provide possible explanations for this phenomenon.
Methods
This retrospective study included patients that underwent vitreoretinal surgery, at Centro Hospitalar São João, between January of 2012 and October of 2018. Inclusion criterion was vitreoretinal surgery in which the chosen endotamponade was SO, followed by removal of SO and exchange with balanced salt solution (BSS) or air. After SO removal, patients with documented loss of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on two or more Snellen lines were analyzed and patients in which the cause of the visual loss was identified, namely OHT (intraocular pressure > 21 mmHg), retinal re-detachment, glaucoma, retinal proliferative membrane formation, or corneal decompensation, were excluded. All patients with unexplained visual loss underwent spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) to exclude causes of visual reduction such as cystoid macular edema, epiretinal membrane, or ellipsoid/interdigitation zone disruption. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A total of 46 eyes underwent SO tamponade and SO removal during the study period. In 34.8% of the cases (n = 16) there was visual acuity loss in at least two Snellen lines. Of 46 eyes, 23.9% (n = 11) showed vision loss due to known secondary causes. Unexplained loss of visual acuity after SO removal occurred in 10.9% of cases. OHT during silicone endotamponade (p = 0.046) and silicone emulsification (p = 0.001) were identified as factors associated with unexplained visual loss after SO removal.
Conclusion
Unexplained loss of visual acuity after SO removal occurred in 10.9% of cases. OHT during silicone endotamponade and SO emulsification were identified as important factors in the ethology of this phenomenon.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
Determine the incidence of unexplained loss of visual acuity after silicone oils (SO) removal. |
Provide possible explanations for loss of visual acuity after SO removal. |
What was learned from the study? |
Unexplained loss of visual acuity after SO removal occurred in 10.9% of cases. |
Intraocular hypertension (OHT) during silicone endotamponade and SO emulsification were identified as important factors in the ethology of this phenomenon. |
Introduction
Silicone oils (SOs) are long-term, well-tolerated, chemically inert, and biocompatible vitreous substitutes [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Owing to these physical and chemical assets SOs ensure the maintenance of the adhesion between the retina and the retinal pigment epithelium and keep the pathological triggers away from the healing site [8,9,10,11]. For this reason, SOs are substances widely used in vitreoretinal surgery [12].
Indications for the use of SOs in vitreoretinal surgery include complicated retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy, diabetic tractional retinal detachment, giant retinal tear, complicated full thickness macular hole, severe ocular trauma, and endophthalmitis [1, 2].
Despite their diverse attributes, SOs are not ideal intravitreal tamponade agents. Conventional SO floats, owing to its lower density compared to the vitreous humor, and as a result the inferior retina is not sufficiently supported because of incomplete filling of the vitreous cavity [4, 9]. As a consequence, pathological substances accumulate in the sub-silicone compartment, inducing an environment prone to retinal re-detachment with proliferative vitreoretinopathy. SO hydrophobicity, low viscosity, and the inadequate surface and interface tension are responsible for its emulsification and dispersion that culminate in a high incidence of long-term complications, namely inflammation, refractive changes, intraocular hypertension (OHT), cataracts, band keratopathy, glaucoma, peri-oil fibrosis, epiretinal membrane formation, metabolic changes, toxicity, and retinal re-detachment [1, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].
The absence of biodegradability of SO and the repercussions in the visual function are determinants that impel the need for SO removal surgery, although small droplets can remain in the eye for at least 11 years after SO removal [13, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. In addition, the removal of SO is associated with a visual acuity improvement in approximately 30% of patients [53].
SOs have an established correlation with unexplained visual loss, but the mechanisms accountable for this phenomenon are not entirely known and many hypotheses have been proposed [56, 57, 62]. SO emulsification, exacerbated by ocular movements, promotes SO sequestration in the optic nerve and retina possibly causing retinal damage and optic neuropathy [63, 64]. Newsom et al. [54, 61] were the first to describe neuronal cell loss, particularly in the outer plexiform layer of the retina, as a result of SO tissue infiltration. Even though no typical electrophysiological pattern has been found in previous studies, generalized macular dysfunction with retinal lesions of ganglion cells and horizontal-bipolar cell synaptic processes in the outer plexiform layer have been reported as possible mechanisms [47, 58, 65, 66]. An alternative hypothesis is that SO emulsification and resulting tissue infiltration induces mechanical obstruction of the retinal vasculature and a decrease in retinal oxygen saturation that can trigger retinal hypoxia, particularly on the outer retina layers [6, 50, 67, 68]. Besides that, other reports state that SO causes oxidative stress, by physical blockage of oxygen and metabolic exchange between the retina and the vitreous humor [69]. The ionic theory proposed that local changes in concentrations of potassium, calcium, and magnesium or in various cytokines levels can explain the visual loss. Another possible explanation may be light phototoxicity (through exposure to ambient light in the postoperative period) since SO transmits more light in the blue spectrum than vitreous and that could lead to apoptosis and macular dysfunction [47, 54, 55].
The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of unexplained loss of visual acuity after SO removal and to provide possible explanations for this phenomenon.
Methods
This retrospective study included patients that underwent vitreoretinal surgery, at Centro Hospitalar São João, between January of 2012 and October of 2018. Inclusion criterion was vitreoretinal surgery in which the chosen endotamponade was SO, followed by removal of SO and exchange with balanced salt solution (BSS) or air. Exclusion criteria included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) under 2/10 (Snellen chart), retinal detachment during SO tamponade, removal SO followed by intraocular gas tamponade (instead of instillation of BSS or air) and complicated pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) during SO removal.
All medical records coded with 14.75 (vitreous substitute injection) in the ICD9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) were reviewed. Data collected included age, gender, affected eye, comorbidities, primary diagnosis (retinal detachment, diabetic retinopathy without retinal detachment, ocular traumatism, endophthalmitis, other), dates of SO injection and removal, total number of previous retinal surgeries, SO viscosity, duration of SO tamponade, complications during SO tamponade, concomitant procedure performed during SO removal, phakic state post removal of SO, BCVA with SO tamponade, BCVA at the last follow-up (after SO removal surgery), and postoperative complications.
After SO removal, patients with documented loss of BCVA on two or more Snellen lines were analyzed and all patients in which the cause of the visual loss was identified, namely OHT (intraocular pressure > 21 mmHg), retinal re-detachment, glaucoma, retinal proliferative membrane formation, or corneal decompensation, were excluded. All patients with unexplained visual loss underwent spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) to exclude causes of visual reduction such as cystoid macular edema, epiretinal membrane, or ellipsoid/ interdigitation zone disruption.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). BCVA values of count fingers, hand motion, and light perception (LP) were assigned Snellen values of 0.014, 0.0052, and 0.0016, respectively. Patients’ BCVA values were transcribed from their records and converted to a logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) scale for analysis. Count fingers, hand motion, and light perception were assigned logMAR values of 1.8, 2.3, and 2.8, respectively. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical data. Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Mann–Whitney test, chi-square test, and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to analyze continuous variables. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study complies with the guidelines for human studies and was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was provided by the Health Ethics Committee of São João Hospital Center.
Results
Eyes that Underwent SO Removal
A total of 3231 eyes coded with 14.75 in the ICD9-CM classification, between January 2012 and October 2018, were selected. A total of 268 eyes underwent SO tamponade and SO removal during the study period; however, 222 eyes presented a BCVA under 2/10 (Snellen chart) and were excluded. Hence, 46 eyes met study criteria.
Mean age was 61.39 ± 19.99 years (range 1–90 years), 67.4% were male, and in 50.0% the right eye was affected. Systemic comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (26.1%), systemic hypertension (63.0%), and dyslipidemia (41.3%) (Table 1).
The main indication to initial surgery was retinal detachment (67.4%), of which 50.0% were rhegmatogenous, 10.9% diabetic tractional, and 6.5% retinal detachment due to other causes, such as Coats disease, cytomegalovirus retinitis, and tractional retinal detachment due to proliferative membranes secondary to other vascular diseases. Other indications for initial surgery were diabetic retinopathy without retinal detachment (10.9%), ocular traumatism (6.5%), endophthalmitis (8.7%), and others, such as vitreous hemorrhage secondary to vascular diseases and macular hole (6.5%) (Table 2).
Prior to SO tamponade, 41.3% of the eyes had undergone phacoemulsification surgery and 32.6% of the eyes had been submitted to at least another one PPV.
In 41 eyes (89.1%) 5000 mPa s (millipascal seconds) SO was used as endotamponade while in 5 eyes (10.9%) 3000 mPa s SO was the choice. The mean time with SO tamponade was 7.27 ± 5.21 months (range 3–30 months) (Table 2).
During SO tamponade many complications occurred, namely OHT (47.8%), SO emulsification (30.4%), anterior chamber SO migration (17.4%), membrane proliferation (15.2%), glaucoma (10.9%), subconjunctival SO migration (8.7%), keratopathy (8.7%), and cataract (6.5%) (Table 3). In the course of SO removal, laser was performed in 52.2% of cases, internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in 19.6% of cases, and cataract phacoemulsification surgery in 2.2% of cases (Table 3). After SO removal, 4.3% were phakic and 95.7% were pseudophakic (Table 3). The mean logMAR BCVA prior to SO removal was 0.49 ± 0.21 (range 0.04–0.7) and subsequent to SO removal it was 0.68 ± 0.59 (range 0.0–2.8) (Table 3).
Best Corrected Visual Acuity After SO Removal
After SO removal, 30 eyes (65.2%) maintained or improved BCVA. However, in 34.8% of the cases (n = 16) there was visual acuity loss in at least two Snellen lines (Table 4).
Of 46 eyes, 23.9% (n = 11) showed vision loss due to known secondary causes. In nine eyes, vision loss occurred as a result of clear causes such as retinal re-detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (five eyes), vitreous hemorrhage secondary to diabetic retinopathy (three eyes), and glaucoma/OHT (one eye) (Table 4). In the remaining seven eyes, SD-OCT was performed and revealed ellipsoid/ interdigitation zone disruption in two cases. In five eyes SD-OCT did not reveal any causes for the acute visual loss, such as cystoid macular edema or epiretinal membrane.
Unexplained Best Corrected Visual Acuity Reduction After SO Removal
Of the eyes included in this study, 10.9% (n = 5) presented unexplained loss of vision. Three of these patients (60.0%) were male. The mean age of this group was 56.60 ± 17.79 years (range 34–73 years). Systemic comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (20.0%), systemic hypertension (40.0%), and dyslipidemia (40.0%) (Table 5).
The main indication for initial surgery was retinal detachment (80.0%), followed by diabetic retinopathy without detachment (20.0%) (Table 5).
In four patients, 5000 mPa s SO was used as endotamponade and in one eye 3000 mPa s SO was chosen. The mean time with SO tamponade was 8.25 ± 3.11 months (Table 5).
There were no intraoperative complications during SO removal and the retina remained attached for the whole duration of the procedure. At the same surgical time, ILM peeling was performed in 20.0% of the cases, laser in 60.0% of the cases, and no cataract phacoemulsification surgery was executed (Table 5).
Eyes with unexplained visual loss and those without visual loss were compared regarding several variables including age, gender, affected eye, systemic comorbidities, indication for initial surgery, duration of SO tamponade, SO tamponade viscosity, complications during SO tamponade, phakic status after SO removal, and concomitant procedures performed during SO removal (Table 5). We observed that OHT during silicone endotamponade (p = 0.046) and silicone emulsification (p = 0.001) were factors associated with unexplained visual loss after SO removal (Table 5).
Regarding the emulsification rate of silicone oil, there were no differences between silicone 5000 and 3000 mPa s. Likewise, no difference was observed in the incidence of unexplained loss of visual acuity according to the silicone oil viscosity (Table 6).
Discussion
Ever since vitreoretinal surgery techniques became widely recognized by the ophthalmologist community, the application of SO as intraocular tamponade expanded significantly [59].
SOs have an established correlation with unexplained visual loss but few explanations have been proposed to explain vision loss after SO removal.
In our retrospective study, of 46 patients that underwent SO tamponade and SO removal during the study period, 34.8% of eyes developed visual impairment. This corresponds positively with the findings reported by Roca et al., Christensen and La Cour, and Moya et al., 13%, 33%, and 50%, respectively [57, 62, 70].
We observed that vision loss occurred in 23.9% of the 46 eyes and was due to known causes. This is compatible with the existing literature. Newsom et al. [61] observed that some loss of vision occurs in 26–27% of patients undergoing removal of silicone oil, due to re-detachment (6–25%), hypotony (16%), cystoid macular edema (12%), and epiretinal membranes (12%). Roca et al. [62] reported visual loss after SO removal secondary to identifiable causes in 7.1% of the eyes, namely retinal re-detachment, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, vitreous hemorrhage, and glaucoma. Despite these findings, 10.9% of the eyes in our study developed visual loss of unexplained cause. This value is lower than in one report (29.7%) but higher (5.9% and 4.4%) than in two other studies [62, 71, 72].
In our study, SD-OCT was performed after SO removal in all eyes with no clear causes for visual acuity loss. However, no fluorescein angiograms or visual field testing was performed. In all cases in the literature, fluorescein angiograms and SD-OCT revealed no alterations that could justify alterations of visual acuity [54, 55, 58, 61]. We did not perform any electrophysiological studies, but they could be helpful to determine the location and possible nature of various dysfunctions along the visual pathway. In the literature, these studies suggest optic neuropathy, macular dysfunction, and generalized retinal dysfunction as causes of the loss of visual acuity [47, 54, 55, 58, 61, 73,74,75,76].
Some studies acknowledged young age, long-term SO tamponade, macula-on retinal detachment associated with giant retinal tear, and elevated intraocular pressure as potential risk factors for visual loss after SO removal [47, 54, 61, 62]. Our study identified OHT during silicone endotamponade (p = 0.046) as a risk factor for unexplained visual loss after SO removal as already published in the literature [72, 73]. An additional risk factor for unexplained visual loss after SO was SO emulsification (p = 0.001) during endotamponade. A possible explanation for the unexplained loss of visual acuity that we observed in our patients lies in the combination of two factors: first, the damage associated with silicone oil emulsification due to infiltration of SO into the optic nerve and retina and consequent retinal damage and optic neuropathy; second, a possible greater susceptibility to neuronal damage that is created by OHT during silicone tamponade.
Particularly in aphakic patients, phototoxicity can be an additional explanation for the visual loss since unexplained visual loss was reported in 4.4% of eyes that underwent SO removal under direct illumination compared to only 1.3% under blocked illumination and the transmission of high energy blue light is more intense in eyes filled with SO in comparison to the vitreous humor [71, 76]. In addition, SO is responsible for dissolving fat-soluble macular pigments from the retina, particularly lutein and zeaxanthin, disrupting the protective mechanism against oxidative damage of these elements [71, 77,78,79,80]. However, in our study, there was no significant difference between phakic and pseudophakic eyes with regards to unexplained visual loss after SO removal.
Some authors defended that, particularly in aphakic patients, after SO removal, in the same way corneal edema is noted when aqueous layer comes back into contact with the corneal endothelium, a similar phenomenon may occur and contribute for the macular damage. However, if the events were analogous then macular edema would be expected and this was not observed in previous studies or in our study [54, 61].
Nevertheless, other explanations are described and proposed in the literature. The “vitreous potassium sink theory” suggests that SO tamponade impedes Müller cells from buffering extracellular potassium from the retina to the vitreous humor, and thus propitiates the rise of potassium concentration in the retro-oil fluid, an aqueous layer that results from the inability to completely fill the vitreous cavity with SO. SO removal then causes an abrupt alteration of the potassium concentration in the milieu that deregulates and triggers apoptosis of the retinal neurons and Müller cells [47, 56,57,58, 62, 74,75,76]. Another explanation for the visual loss involves the accumulation of growth factors, cytokines, and several metabolites, such as fibroblast growth factor and interleukin-6, in the retro-oil fluid. These may have a deleterious effect either during SO tamponade, as a result of the failure in the retinal buffering effect, or after SO removal, by dispersion of these substances with widespread damage to the surrounding tissues [77]. Finally, it is thought that changes in the retinal vasculature by the SO tamponade and an alteration in retinal blood perfusion, at the time of SO removal, may be a contributing factor to vision loss [58].
Although vison loss does not appear to be immediate after surgery but approximately 1–5 months after surgery, we think it would be interesting to introduce data of intraocular pressure (medium, spikes) during the SO removal procedure, in future research [65].
The main limitations of our study include its retrospective nature, and hence the absence of a standardized research protocol with the inclusion of some complementary data. The fact that this study involved patients of a single center may not adequately reflect geographical variation. However, it included comprehensive and accurate data collection, it compares eyes with unexplained visual loss to those without visual loss, and SD-OCT was performed in eyes with apparent unexplained visual loss.
Conclusion
The incidence of vision loss after removal of SO is of great importance (34.8%). In about 23.9% of the eyes that underwent SO removal, the loss of visual acuity occurred as a result of an identifiable etiology, but in 10.9% of cases the cause of visual loss remains unknown. This study encountered OHT during silicone endotamponade and SO emulsification as important factors in the ethology of this phenomenon. On the basis of the evidence, close monitoring of intraocular pressure in patients that underwent SO tamponade and SO removal is of critical importance. In addition, SO removal surgery should be performed as soon as possible.
References
Azen SP, Scott IU, Flynn HW Jr, et al. Silicone oil in the repair of complex retinal detachments. A prospective observational multicenter study. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1587–97.
Van Meurs JC, Mertens DAE, Peperkamp ED, Post J. Five-year results of vitrectomy and silicone oil in patients with proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Retina. 1993;13:285–9.
Blumenkranz MS, Azen SP, Aaberg T, Boone DC. Relaxing retinotomy with silicone oil or long-acting gas in eyes with severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Silicone Study Report 5. The Silicone Study Group. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:557–64.
Colthurst MJ, Williams RL, Hiscott PS, I, Grierson biomaterials used in the posterior segment of the eye. Biomaterials. 2000;21:649–65.
Versura P, Cellini M, Torreggiani A, et al. The biocompatibility of silicone, fluorosilicone and perfluorocarbon liquids as vitreous tamponades. Ophthalmologica. 2001;215:276–83.
Mackiewicz J, Mühling B, Hiebl W, et al. In vivo retinal tolerance of various heavy silicone oils. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1873–83.
Zeana D, Becker J, Kuckelkorn R, Kirchhof B. Perfluorohexyloctane as a long-term vitreous tamponade in the experimental animal: experimental perfluorohexyloctane substitution. Int Ophthalmol. 1999;23:17–24.
Petersen J. The physical and surgical aspects of silicone oil in the vitreous cavity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1987;225:452–6.
Barca F, Caporossi T, Rizzo S. Silicone oil: different physical proprieties and clinical applications. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:502143.
Lambrou FH, Burke JM, Aaberg TM. Effect of silicone oil on experimental traction retinal detachment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1269–72.
Kirchhof B. Strategies to influence PVR development. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:699–703.
Foster WJ. Vitreous substitutes. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2008;3(2):211–8.
Schnichels S, Schneider N, Hohenadl C, et al. Efficacy of two different thiol-modified crosslinked hyaluronate formulations as vitreous replacement compared to silicone oil in a model of retinal detachment. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0172895.
Crisp A, de Juan E, Tiedeman J. Effect of silicone oil viscosity on emulsification. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:546–50.
Heidenkummer HP, Kampik A, Thierfelder S. Emulsification of silicone oils with specific physicochemical characteristics. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1991;229:88–94.
Williams RL, Day M, Garvey MJ, et al. Increasing the extensional viscosity of silicone oil reduces the tendency for emulsification. Retina. 2010;30:300–4.
Caramoy A, Schröder S, Fauser S, Kirchhof B. In vitro emulsification assessment of new silicone oils. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:509–12.
Heidenkummer HP, Kampik A, Thierfelder S. Experimental evaluation of in vitro stability of purified polydimethylsiloxanes (silicone oil) in viscosity ranges from 1000 to 5000 centistokes. Retina. 1992;12:S28–S32.
Nakamura K, Refojo MF, Crabtree DV, Leong FL. Analysis and fractionation of silicone and fluorosilicone oils for intraocular use. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:2059–69.
Schwert GW. Outlines of biochemistry. R. A. GORTNER, 3rd edition edited by R. A. Gortner, Jr., and W. A. Gortner, Wiley, New York, 1949, 1078 pp., $7.00. J Polym Sci. 1950;5:637–637.
Kociok N Gavranic C, Kirchhof B Joussen AM. Influence on membrane-mediated cell activation by vesicles of silicone oil or perfluorohexyloctane. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:345–58.
Light DJ. Silicone oil emulsification in the anterior chamber after vitreoretinal surgery. Optometry. 2006;77:446–9.
Riedel KG, Gabel VP, Neubauer L, et al. Intravitreal silicone oil injection: complications and treatment of 415 consecutive patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1990;228:19–23.
Federman JL, Schubert HD. Complications associated with the use of silicone oil in 150 eyes after retina-vitreous surgery. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:870–6.
Falkner CI, Binder S, Kruger A. Outcome after silicone oil removal. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1324–7.
La Heij EC, Hendrikse F, Kessels AG. Results and complications of temporary silicone oil tamponade in patients with complicated retinal detachments. Retina. 2001;21:107–14.
Bakri SJ, Ekdawi NS. Intravitreal silicone oil droplets after intravitreal drug injections. Retina. 2008;28:996–1001.
Theelen T, Tilanus MAD, Klevering BJ. Intraocular inflammation following endotamponade with high-density silicone oil. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242(7):617–20.
Morescalchi F, Costagliola C, Duse S, et al. Heavy silicone oil and intraocular inflammation. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:16.
Hsuan JD, Brown NA, Bron AJ, Patel CK, Rosen PH. Posterior subcapsular and nuclear cataract after vitrectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:437–44.
Borislav D. Cataract after silicone oil implantation. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;83:79–82.
Spraul CW, Jakobczyk-Zmija MJ, Aigner T, Lang GK. Posterior fibrous pseudometaplasia of lens epithelial cells in phacic eyes filled with silicone oil. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:829–34.
Saika S, Miyamoto T, Tanaka T, Ohnishi Y, Ooshima A, Kimura W. Histopathology of anterior lens capsules in vitrectomized eyes with tamponade by silicone oil. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:376–8.
Barr CC, Lai MY, Lean JS, Linton KL, Trese M, Abrams G, et al. Postoperative intraocular pressure abnormalities in the Silicone Study: Silicone Study Report 4. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:1629–35.
Henderer JD, Budenz DL, Flynn HW Jr, Schiffman JC, Feuer WJ, Murray TG. Elevated intraocular pressure and hypotony following silicone oil retinal tamponade for complex retinal detachment: incidence and risk factors. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:189–95.
Pang MP, Peyman GA, Kao GW. Early anterior segment complications after silicone oil injection. Can J Ophthalmol. 1986;21:271–5.
Valone J Jr, McCarthy M. Emulsified anterior chamber silicone oil and glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1908–12.
Ichhpujani P, Jindal A, Jay KL. Silicone oil induced glaucoma: a review. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1585–93.
Lin XF, Liang LY, Lin MK, Yuan ZH. Treatment of glaucoma secondary to silicone oil retention. Retina. 2005;25:515–7.
Matić S, Suić SP, Biuk D, et al. Influence of silicone oil tamponade after vitrectomy on intraocular pressure. Coll Antropol. 2013;37:227–35.
Nguyen QH, Lloyd MA, Heuer DK, et al. Incidence and management of glaucoma after intravitreal silicone oil injection for complicated retinal detachments. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:1520–6.
Heidenkummer HP, Messmer EM, Kampik A. Recurrent vitreoretinal membranes in intravitreal silicon oil tamponade. Morphologic and immunohistochemical studies. Ophthalmologe. 1996;93:121–5.
Sigler EJ, Randolph JC, Calzada JI, Charles S. Pars plana vitrectomy with medium-term postoperative perfluoro-N-octane for recurrent inferior retinal detachment complicated by advanced proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Retina. 2013;33(4):791–7.
Cherfan GM, Michels RG, de Bustros S, Enger C, Glaser BM. Nuclear sclerotic cataract after vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membranes causing macular pucker. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111:434–8.
Kirchhof B, Tavakolian U, Paulmann H, Heimann K. Histopathological findings in eyes after silicone oil injection. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1986;224(1):34–7.
Ni C, Wang WJ, Albert DM, Schepens CL. Intravitreous silicone injection. Histopathologic findings in a human eye after 12 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;101(9):1399–401.
Gonvers M, Hornung J-P, de Courten C. The effect of liquid silicone on the rabbit retina. Histologic and ultrastructural study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(7):1057–62.
Ohira A, Wilson CA, de Juan E, Murata Y, Soji T, Oshima K. Experimental retinal tolerance to emulsified silicone oil. Retina. 1991;11:259–65.
Nakamura K, Refojo MF, Crabtree DV, Pastor J, Leong F-L. Ocular toxicity of low-molecular-weight components of silicone and fluorosilicone oils. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991;32(12):3007–200.
Kubicka-Trzaska A, Kobylarz J, Romanowska-Dixon B. Macular microcirculation blood flow after pars plana vitrectomy with silicone oil tamponade. Klin Oczna. 2011;113(4–6):146–8.
Effert R, Wolf S, Arend O, Schulte K, Reim M. Retinal hemodynamics after pars plana vitrectomy with silicone oil tamponade. Ger J Ophthalmol. 1994;3(2):65–7.
La Cour M, Lux A, Heegaard S. Visual loss under silicone oil. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2010;227:181–4.
Franks WA, Leaver PK. Removal of silicone oil–rewards and penalties. Eye Lond. 1991;5(3 Pt 3):333–7.
Newsom RS, Johnston R, Sullivan PM, et al. Sudden visual loss after removal of silicone oil. Retina. 2004;24:871–7.
Herbert EN, Habib M, Steel D, Williamson TH. Central scotoma associated with intraocular silicone oil tamponade develops before oil removal. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244:248–52.
Williams PD, Fuller CG, Scott IU, et al. Vision loss associated with the use and removal of intraocular silicone oil. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008;2:955–9.
Christensen UC, la Cour M. Visual loss after use of intraocular silicone oil associated with thinning of inner retinal layers. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:733–7.
Cazabon S, Groenewald C, Pearce IA, Wong D. Visual loss following removal of intraocular silicone oil. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(7):799–802.
Soheilian M, Mazareei M, Mohammadpour M, Rahmani B. Comparison of silicon oil removal with various viscosities after complex retinal detachment surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2006;6:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-6-21.
Mrejen S, Sato T, Fisher Y, Spaide RF. Intraretinal and intra-optic nerve head silicone oil vacuoles using adaptive optics. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2014;45(1):71–3.
Newsom RS, Johnston R, Sullivan P, Aylward B, Holder G, Gregor Z. Visual loss following silicone oil removal. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(12):1668.
Roca JA, Wu L, Berrocal M, et al. Un-explained visual loss following silicone oil removal: results of the Pan American Collaborative Retina Study (PACORES) Group. Int J Retin Vitr. 2017;3:26.
Knorr H, Seltsam A, Holbach L, Naumann G. Intraocular silicone oil tamponade. A clinico-pathologic study of 36 enucleated eyes. Ophthalmologe. 1996;93:130–8.
Wickham L, Asaria RH, Alexander R, Luthert P, Charteris DG. Immunopathology of intraocular silicone oil: enucleated eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:253–7.
Herbert EN, Laidlaw DA, Williamson TH, et al. Loss of vision once silicone oil has been removed. Retina. 2005;25(6):808–9.
Papp A, Kiss EB, Timar O, et al. Long-term exposure of the rabbit eye to silicone oil causes optic nerve atrophy. Brain Res Bull. 2007;74(1–3):130–3.
Mukai N, Lee PF, Schepens CL. Intravitreous injection of silicone: an experimental study. II. Histochemistry and electron microscopy. Ann Ophthalmol. 1972;4(4):273–87.
Lou B, Yuan Z, He L, Lin L, Gao Q, Lin X. The changes of retinal saturation after long-term tamponade with silicone oil. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:713828. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/713828.
Gray RH, Cringle SJ, Constable IJ. Fluorescein angiographic findings in three patients with long-term intravitreal liquid silicone. Br J Ophthalmol. 1989;73(12):991–5.
Moya R, Chandra A, Banerjee PJ, Tsouris D, Ahmad N, Charteris DG. The incidence of unexplained visual loss following removal of silicone oil. Eye (Lond). 2015;29(11):1477–82.
Dogramaci M, Williams K, Lee E, et al. Foveal light exposure is increased at the time of removal of silicone oil with the potential for phototoxicity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:35.
Scheerlinck LM, Schellekens PA, Liem AT, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of unexplained visual loss after intraocular silicone oil for macula-on retinal detachment. Retina. 2016;36:342–50.
Marti M, Walton R, Boni C, Zweifel SA, Stahel M, Barthelmes D. Increased intraocular pressure is a risk factor for unexplained visual loss during silicone oil endotamponade. Retina. 2017;37:2334–40.
Winter M, Eberhardt W, Scholz C, Reichenbach A. Failure of potassium siphoning by Müller cells: a new hypothesis of perfluorocarbon liquid-induced retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:256–61.
Yao X, Endo EG, Mormor MF. Reversibility of retinal adhesion in the rabbit. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30:220–4.
Mazur A, Maier J, Rock E, Gueux E, Nowacki W, Rayssiguier Y. Magnesium and the inflammatory response: potential physiopathological implications. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007;458:48–56.
Asaria RHY, Kon CH, Bunce C, et al. Silicone oil concentrates fibrogenic growth factors in the retro-oil fluid. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1439–42.
Azzolini C, Docchio F, Brancato R, Trabucchi G. Interactions between light and vitreous fluid substitutes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:1468–71.
Tode J, Purtskhvanidze K, Oppermann T, et al. Vision loss under silicone oil tamponade. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:1465.
Refojo MF, Leong FL, Chung H, Ueno N, Nemiroff B, Tolentino FI. Extraction of retinol and cholesterol by intraocular silicone oils. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:614–8.
Acknowledgements
Funding
No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by the authors.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Disclosures
Cláudia Oliveira-Ferreira, Mariana Azevedo, Marta Silva, Ana Roca, João Barbosa-Breda, Pedro Alves Faria, Fernando Falcão-Reis, and Amândio Rocha-Sousa have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This study complies with the guidelines for human studies and was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was provided by the Health Ethics Committee of São João Hospital Center.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Digital Features
To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12221741
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Oliveira-Ferreira, C., Azevedo, M., Silva, M. et al. Unexplained Visual Loss After Silicone Oil Removal: A 7-Year Retrospective Study. Ophthalmol Ther 9, 1–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-020-00259-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-020-00259-5