4.7 Article

Status of corneal endothelial cells in the presence of silicone oil in the anterior chamber

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93338-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of silicone oil presence in the anterior chamber on corneal endothelium damage following pars plana vitrectomy. The results showed a high correlation between the retention period of silicone oil tamponade and the decrease rate of corneal endothelial cell density. However, there was no correlation between the presence of anterior chamber silicone oil, area of silicone oil attachment, lens status, and the decrease rate of corneal endothelial cell density.
To evaluate corneal endothelium damage with silicone oil (SO) presence in the anterior chamber after pars plana vitrectomy. We investigated the medical records of consecutive 54 eyes of 53 patients undergoing SO removal after pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade at Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Japan. We recorded SO tamponade retention period, anterior chamber SO with gonioscope, area of SO attachment to the corneal endothelium before SO removal surgery, and the lens status. We then retrospectively investigated the correlation between SO presence in the anterior chamber and the decrease rate of corneal endothelial cell (CEC) density during SO tamponade. The average decrease rate of CEC density was 7.6 (0-38.1) %. The correlation between SO tamponade retention period and decrease rate of CEC density was high (p=0.0001). However, there was no correlation between anterior chamber SO under gonioscope, SO attaching area, and lens status with the decrease rate of CEC density (p=0.11, p=0.93, p=0.16). No correlation was observed between CEC loss and the existence of anterior chamber SO, although CEC decrease rate was relatively high after a long SO tamponade period. These findings suggest that SO presence in the anterior chamber may not directly injure CEC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据