Vitrectomy with silicone oil or perfluoropropane gas in eyes with severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy: results of a randomized clinical trial. Silicone Study Report 2. Vitrectomy with silicone oil or sulfur hexafluoride gas in eyes with severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy: results of a randomized clinical trial. Silicone Study Report 1.
Between September 1987 and October 1990, 265 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and severe (with a classification of at least C-3) proliferative vitreoretinopathy were treated with vitrectomy and randomized to treatment with perfluoropropane gas or silicone oil; 131 eyes had undergone no prior vitrectomy (group 1) while 134 eyes had undergone vitrectomy with intraocular gas tamponade (group 2). At the last examination, there were no differences between perfluoropropane gas and silicone oil in achieving visual acuity greater than or equal to 5/200 (43% vs 45% for group 1, 38% vs 33% for group 2) and complete posterior retinal reattachment (73% vs 64% for group 1, 73% vs 61% for group 2). For group 1 eyes followed up for at least 18 months, there was an advantage favoring perfluoropropane gas in achieving complete posterior retinal reattachment (83% vs 60% at 36 months, P = .045). The rates of reoperation and keratopathy were similar, while hypotony was more prevalent in eyes randomized to perfluoropropane gas (group 2). Regardless of tamponade, groups 1 and 2 had similar anatomic and visual success. However, hypotony was twice as prevalent in group 2 (perfluoropropane), and the prevalence of keratopathy increased with follow-up in group 2 (either tamponade). Either tamponade produced better results than those seen with sulfur hexafluoride gas (Silicone Study Report 1). 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 less than .05). Macula attachment was more frequent in eyes that received silicone oil than in those that received sulfur hexafluoride gas (80% vs 60%, P less than .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 (less than 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.
The use of either C3F8 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.