PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of passive removal of silicone oil with 23-gauge (G) transconjunctival sutureless system. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, interventional, randomized control study. Forty eyes of 40 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 (n = 20) patients underwent passive removal of silicone oil with 23-G transconjunctival sutureless system. Group 2 (n = 20) underwent 20-G active silicone oil removal using all three 20-G ports. In both groups, air-fluid exchange was performed and the globe was left air filled at the end of surgery. All eyes in both groups received 360 degrees endolaser. We recorded surgical time, time for silicone oil removal, number of sutured 23-G sclerotomy sites, presence of preoperative scarring at sclerotomy site, postoperative hypotony, endophthalmitis, and inflammation at sclerotomy site. RESULTS:Opening and closing times were significantly shorter in Group 1 than in Group 2. Only 3 cases (15%) in Group 1 required 1 additional suture each in the superior sclerotomy site. Both groups were similar in safety in terms of chance of endophthalmitis, redetachment rate, and postoperative hypotony. Only 1 patient of Group 1 (5%) and 5 patients of Group 2 (25%) showed significant conjunctival inflammation at the end of 2 weeks. CONCLUSION:Passive removal of silicone oil with 23-G transconjunctival sutureless system may hasten postoperative recovery by decreasing overall surgical time and postoperative inflammation. It is a safe and effective procedure when compared with 20-G active silicone oil removal for 1000 centistoke oil.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of passive removal of silicone oil with 23-gauge (G) transconjunctival sutureless system. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, interventional, randomized control study. Forty eyes of 40 patients were enrolled in this study and randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 (n = 20) patients underwent passive removal of silicone oil with 23-G transconjunctival sutureless system. Group 2 (n = 20) underwent 20-G active silicone oil removal using all three 20-G ports. In both groups, air-fluid exchange was performed and the globe was left air filled at the end of surgery. All eyes in both groups received 360 degrees endolaser. We recorded surgical time, time for silicone oil removal, number of sutured 23-G sclerotomy sites, presence of preoperative scarring at sclerotomy site, postoperative hypotony, endophthalmitis, and inflammation at sclerotomy site. RESULTS: Opening and closing times were significantly shorter in Group 1 than in Group 2. Only 3 cases (15%) in Group 1 required 1 additional suture each in the superior sclerotomy site. Both groups were similar in safety in terms of chance of endophthalmitis, redetachment rate, and postoperative hypotony. Only 1 patient of Group 1 (5%) and 5 patients of Group 2 (25%) showed significant conjunctival inflammation at the end of 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: Passive removal of silicone oil with 23-G transconjunctival sutureless system may hasten postoperative recovery by decreasing overall surgical time and postoperative inflammation. It is a safe and effective procedure when compared with 20-G active silicone oil removal for 1000 centistoke oil.