ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Vitreous Substitutes in Vitreoretinal Surgery: From Native Vitreous Physiology to Bioengineered Experimental Replacements.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vitreous body is not only a transparent filling material of the posterior segment; it is a soft, hydrated, and biologically active matrix that supports structural, optical, and biochemical homeostasis. Vitrectomy therefore leaves a functional deficit that current substitutes only partly address. Intraocular gases, silicone oils, and perfluorocarbon liquids remain essential surgical tools, but they mainly provide mechanical tamponade and do not reproduce native viscoelasticity, diffusion control, or protection against oxidative and inflammatory stress. This review considers vitreous replacement as a functional biomaterials challenge. We discuss native vitreous physiology, the limitations of present tamponade agents, and emerging bioengineered substitutes designed to create a more physiological intravitreal environment. Particular attention is given to hydrogel and polymer-based systems, especially hyaluronic acid-based and in situ crosslinked platforms, which are being developed to combine optical clarity, injectability, soft mechanical support, controlled degradation, and favorable tissue interaction. We also emphasize the need for standardized preclinical testing of swelling, enzymatic stability, drug diffusion, rheology, and long-term biocompatibility. Although next-generation materials may move the field beyond passive space filling, manufacturing reproducibility, regulatory validation, chronic safety, and cautious early-phase trials remain major translational barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.