ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Silicone oil vs. gas tamponade in giant retinal tear associated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare anatomical, visual, and safety outcomes of silicone oil (SO) versus gas tamponade in the surgical management of giant retinal tear (GRT)-associated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis with protocol registration in PROSPERO (CRD420251207629). We searched PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and included studies comparing SO and gas tamponade in GRT-associated retinal detachment with at least 10 eyes per group. We pooled data using random-effects models and reported risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using RoB 2, NOS, or JBI tools, and evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was anatomical success, assessed as primary and final anatomical success. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity and postoperative complications.
resultsNine studies comprising 619 eyes with GRT-associated RRD were included. Final anatomical success was high and comparable between silicone oil and gas tamponade groups (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; I² = 0%). Primary anatomical success also did not differ significantly between groups (RR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.20; P = 0.14; I² = 49%). Most studies reported postoperative visual improvement regardless of tamponade type, while several studies suggested better final visual outcomes with gas tamponade, particularly in macula-on detachments. No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications. Overall certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.
conclusionSO and gas tamponade achieved comparable anatomical success in GRT-associated retinal detachment. However, gas tamponade may be associated with better visual outcomes without an increased risk of postoperative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911228What 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.