Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38548945›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2024

Refinements in the use of silicone oil as an intraocular tamponade.

D Ian Wilson, Andrew D Te Water Naude, Martin P Snead

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hydrogel-Based Vitreous Substitutes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D Ian Wilson *Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK. diw11@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-9165
Andrew D Te Water Naude *Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Philippa Fawcett Drive, Cambridge, CB3 0AS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6322-5196
Martin P Snead *Vitreoretinal Service, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0042-8659

Funding

University of Cambridge WD Armstrong FundUniversity of Cambridge WD Armstrong Fund PhD studentship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is over 60 years since Paul Cibis et al. reported the experimental use of liquid silicone in the surgical management of retinal detachment. Initial experiences were complicated by significant side-effects associated with the impurities in the non-medical grade commercial silicone oils deployed at the time. These were substantially reduced (but not eliminated) by the adoption of refined high-viscosity medical grade silicone oils. Two of the major complications associated with silicone tamponade are (i) the variability of focus due to its movement and higher refractive index, and (ii) progressive emulsification, particularly with low viscosity oils. This article reviews recent and ongoing research on the causes of emulsification of intra-ocular silicone oil to understand the causes better and thereby reduce this risk, especially for those eyes where permanent tamponade is the only current option for retaining vision.

Indexed as

EndotamponadeRetinal DetachmentSilicone OilsVitrectomyEmulsionsHumansViscosityEmulsionsSilicone Oils

Identifiers

PMID38548945
PMCPMC11226643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.