الفهرس 
Title : Evaluation of the changes in the intraocular pressure in Siliconized eyes before and after removal of silicone oil of different viscosities
contentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 98 |  |  |
| | | from | 98 | | |
Abstract
Silicone oil “SiO” injection has been the most commonly used over the past decades in vitreoretinal surgeries as a prolonged endo-tamponading substance for treating complex retinal detachments including rhegmatogenous, tractional or combined tractional rhegmatogenous detachments. Silicone oil infusion has many complications including oil emulsification, secondary glaucoma that can be due to an acute postop rise or long term IOP elevation. Additionally, corneal decompensation, band keratopathy, retinal toxicity or cataract formation in phakic patients are possible complications. (1)
Silicone oil has different viscosities ranging from 1000-10,000 centistokes; however, the most widely used types are 1000 and 5000 cSt. Silicone 1000 has a lower molecular weight than 5000 with a higher tendency to emulsify faster with more frequent complications compared to silicone 5000.
Objectives: The goal of this study is to compare IOP changes before and after removal of silicone oil between silicone 1000 and 5000. Also, we aimed at evaluation of IOP changes regardless of the type of the used silicone after SOR.
Methods: Our study is a cohort prospective study that was conducted in Kasr Al Ainy Hospital. A total of 40 cases were recruited from Kasr Alainy outpatients’ clinic and were further subdivided into two subgroups; silicone 1000 and 5000. They underwent full ophthalmological assessment and measurement of intraocular pressure using Goldmann applanation tonometer one day prior to and 1 month after silicone oil removal surgery.
Results: A statistically significant difference in IOP was found between both study groups silicone 1000 and 5000 cSt. It was better with the latter group; however, we didn’t consider it to be clinically significant owing to the preoperative differences between both study groups. Also, a statistically significant difference was found between males and females regardless of the type of the used silicone oil where decreased IOP was found to be more in females. No significant difference was found between the early SOR group and the late SOR group. Out of 40 patients, 72.5% of them had a normal IOP while 25% developed secondary glaucoma and only 2.5% had an IOP lower than 10 mmHg.
Conclusion: In our study we didn’t find clinical variations in IOP between both study groups 1000 and 5000. Additionally, the duration of silicone oil endotamponade doesn’t affect IOP readings before and after SOR.