[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.179.232. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 1992

Vitrectomy With Silicone Oil or Sulfur Hexafluoride Gas in Eyes With Severe Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy: Results of a Randomized Clinical TrialSilicone Study Report 1

Author Affiliations

Prepared for the Silicone Study Group by John S. Lean, MD; Donna C. Boone, MS, MS; Stanley P. Azen, PhD; Mei Ying Lai, MS; Kathryn L. P. Linton, MS; Brooks W. McCuen II, MD; and Stephen J. Ryan, MD. A complete list of participants in this study appears on page 778.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(6):770-779. doi:10.1001/archopht.1992.01080180042027
Abstract

• Between September 1985 and September 1987, 101 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and severe (with a classification of at least C-3) proliferative vitreoretinopathy but without prior vitrectomy were treated with vitrectomy and randomized to either a mixture of 20% sulfur hexafluoride gas and air or to 1000 centistokes of silicone oil. Between 50% and 60% of eyes that received silicone oil had visual acuity better than or equal to 5/200 compared with 30% to 40% of the eyes that received sulfur hexafluoride gas (P<.05). Macula attachment was more frequent in eyes that received silicone oil than in those that received sulfur hexafluoride gas (80% vs 60%, P<.05). Hypotony was more prevalent in eyes with a detached macula (40% to 50% for sulfur hexafluoride gas vs 25% to 30% for silicone oil) when compared with those with attached maculas (<5% for either modality). Keratopathy was more prevalent in eyes with detached maculas (about 55% to 60% for either modality) compared with eyes with attached maculas (25% to 30% for sulfur hexafluoride gas vs 10% to 15% for silicone oil). In a companion article, we show that these differences between a gas tamponade and silicone oil are not found for perfluoropropane gas.

×