“…The present data confirm other observa tions on the absence of toxicity of this com pound on the retina [7][8][9]11 ], as well as simi lar observations of lack of toxicity on the cor neal endothelium [4], The latter observation is of importance because comparisons of other toxic compounds on both corneal endo thelium and blood-retinal barrier have indi cated that the corneal endothelium is the more sensitive paradigm for toxicity evalua tion of such materials [4,[17][18][19][20] vitreous at a substantial volume (25% of the total capacity of the vitreous cavity), offers no overt toxic effects on the blood-retinal bar rier, albeit the rabbit retinal vasculature is not the same as that of a human eye. Prior studies on retinal toxicity of perfluoro-n-octane indi cated that even large quantities of this liquid (80-90% replacement of vitreous volume) caused no change in the electroretinogram, although some histopathological changes were indicated where the liquid contacted the retina [11],…”
Studies have been made of the effects of intravitreal perfluoro-n-octane on the permeability to fluorescein of the blood-retinal barrier in rabbits. At day 1 after injection, there is increased aqueous humor fluorescence that reflects the physical disturbance to the eye following injection. From that time through 7 weeks, there is no evidence of any overt toxicity to the blood-retinal barrier. The retention in the vitreous of a small volume of perfluoro-n-octane following its intraoperative use would not be expected to induce a toxic response. Some effect on an already compromised retina cannot, however, be excluded.
“…The present data confirm other observa tions on the absence of toxicity of this com pound on the retina [7][8][9]11 ], as well as simi lar observations of lack of toxicity on the cor neal endothelium [4], The latter observation is of importance because comparisons of other toxic compounds on both corneal endo thelium and blood-retinal barrier have indi cated that the corneal endothelium is the more sensitive paradigm for toxicity evalua tion of such materials [4,[17][18][19][20] vitreous at a substantial volume (25% of the total capacity of the vitreous cavity), offers no overt toxic effects on the blood-retinal bar rier, albeit the rabbit retinal vasculature is not the same as that of a human eye. Prior studies on retinal toxicity of perfluoro-n-octane indi cated that even large quantities of this liquid (80-90% replacement of vitreous volume) caused no change in the electroretinogram, although some histopathological changes were indicated where the liquid contacted the retina [11],…”
Studies have been made of the effects of intravitreal perfluoro-n-octane on the permeability to fluorescein of the blood-retinal barrier in rabbits. At day 1 after injection, there is increased aqueous humor fluorescence that reflects the physical disturbance to the eye following injection. From that time through 7 weeks, there is no evidence of any overt toxicity to the blood-retinal barrier. The retention in the vitreous of a small volume of perfluoro-n-octane following its intraoperative use would not be expected to induce a toxic response. Some effect on an already compromised retina cannot, however, be excluded.
“…Animal studies also showed corneal changes only in days after the injection of silicone oil in anterior chamber. 15,16 These evidences indicated a possibility of direct toxic effect of silicone oil on CE when they contact. In addition, toxic impurities, the low-molecular-weight ingredients in silicone oil, have been reported to be toxic to CE and may contribute to this toxicity of silicone oil.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…8,12 Evidence showed the silicone oil penetration into ocular tissues including the anterior segments, and although no massive inflammation has been detected in the zones in contact with silicone oil, immunoglobulins and complement fractions are present in the stroma and around the droplets of emulsified silicone oil, suggesting a local immune reaction. 14 Furthermore, injection of silicone oil into rabbit's anterior chamber causes the changes in CE morphology and permeability; 15,16 these evidences indicated the possible cytotoxic effects of silicone oil on CEs rather than just acting as a barrier of cell nutrition.…”
“…On the one hand, the subset of aphakic patients with silicone oil endotamponade requiring SOR is relatively infrequent; on the other hand, our inclusion criteria additionally dropped out several patients from the study. The rationale to exclude eyes with silicone oil touch was to minimize the bias because in these eyes the corneal endothelium is considerably more compromised (Sternberg et al 1985;Yang et al 2008;Versura et al 2001;Norman et al 1990). The limitation of the experimental part of the study is the in vitro setting which only conditionally addresses the clinical situation.…”
ABSTRACT.Purpose: To compare limbal and pars plana silicone oil removal (SOR) in aphakic eyes and to evaluate the acute effect of silicone oil flow to the corneal endothelium. Methods: Sixteen aphakic patients with silicone oil endotamponade requiring SOR were recruited for this prospective study and randomly scheduled for limbal or pars plana SOR. The central corneal thickness (CCT), visual acuity (VA) and intraocular pressure were measured preoperatively, on the first postoperative day and 4 months after surgery. Endothelial cell density (ECD) was measured preoperatively and at the end of follow-up. The in vitro study was performed on ten enucleated porcine eyes. Corneoscleral discs were prepared and fixed on artificial anterior chamber followed by 2.5-mm limbal incision and 5-ml silicone oil injection in six cases and 5 ml balanced salt solution (BSS) in four cases. Results: The ECD decreased by 239.2 ± 86.7 (13.9%) and 86.7 ± 22.4 cells ⁄ mm 2 (5%) after limbal (n = 8) and pars plana SOR (n = 8), respectively (p < 0.001 for both). The difference between the groups was significant (p < 0.001). A significant increase in CCT and corresponding decrease in VA was noted on the first postoperative day using both procedures. At the end of follow-up, the CCT and VA were comparable to initial values. Postoperative hypotony (£6 mmHg) was observed more frequently after limbal SOR. In the experiment, lamellar abrasions of corneal endothelium were observed after silicone oil injection, whereas no changes were observed after BSS injection. Conclusion: Limbal SOR causes more considerable damage to the corneal endothelium than the pars plana approach because of mechanical abrasion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.