-
The mean age of patients was 51.60 ± 10.60 years (range, 30–62 years; median, 56 years). Four patients were male. The demographic characteristics of the patients are listed in Table 1. Past history was not remarkable except for ametropia, and the mean refractive power in these patients was −5.96 ± 2.01 diopter (range, −9 to −4.25 diopter; median, −6 diopter). According to the medical records of these patients, all patients underwent uncomplicated PPV and 5,000 centistoke SO tamponade, and four of them had macula-off RD when they underwent surgery. Retinal reattachment was attained after surgery in all eyes. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications were noted. Visual acuity of all patients improved in the early postoperatively period, but four patients developed gradual visual loss at one to one and a half months postoperatively. All patients underwent SO removal around three months postoperatively. Three patients instantly complained of after SO removal. The mean BCVA during SO tamponade was 0.54 ± 0.29 (logMAR 0.27 ± 0.54), and the mean BCVA after SO removal was 0.05 ± 0.03 (logMAR 1.3 ± 1.5).
Table 1. Summary of cases of SO-related visual loss
Patient Age (years) Sex Eye Refractive power (diopter) Macular status BCVA during SO tamponade BCVA after SO removal When visual loss was noticed 1 56 M OD −6.50 Off 0.50 0.04 1 month after SO tamponade 2 62 F OD −4 Off 0.40 0.05 After SO removal 3 48 M OS −6 On 0.80 0.02 After SO removal 4 58 F OD −4.25 Off 0.15 0.05 1.5 months after SO tamponade 5 57 M OD −4 Off 0.30 0.05 1 month after SO tamponade 6 30 M OD −8 On 0.60 0.10 After SO removal 7 50 F OD −9 On 1.00 0.02 1 month after SO tamponade Average 51.60 ± 10.60 −5.96 ± 2.01 0.54 ± 0.29 0.05 ± 0.03 Note. BCVA: best corrected visual acuity; SO: silicone oil; M: male; F: female. -
Quantitative analysis of OCTA images revealed a significant reduction in vessel density (VD) in the superficial macula in the affected eyes compared with contralateral eyes (Table 2, Figure 1A1, B1). The superior section of RPCP VD was significantly reduced (P = 0.007), while the inferior section of RPCP VD was not reduced (P = 0.054, Figure 1A3, B3). The FAZ area was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.397). There was no significant change in DCP VD between the two groups (superior parafovea P = 0.404; inferior parafovea P = 0.915; superior perifovea P = 0.220; inferior perifovea P = 0.136).
Figure 1. Representative OCTA and OCT images of one patient with SO-related visual loss (A1–A5: unaffected fellow eye, B1–B5: affected eye). (A1, B1) The macular superficial vessel density. (A2, B2) Morphology of the macula was normal on B-scan. (A3, B3) The radial peripapillary capillary plexus vessel density. (A4, B4) The ganglion cell complex significance map. The color coding for the normative display uses a green (within normal range), yellow (borderline normal range) and red (outside normal range). (A5, B5) The optic nerve head (ONH) results showed peripapillary RNFL thickness. Warmer colors represent relatively thicker regions and cooler colors represent relatively thinner regions.
Table 2. Quantitative analysis of FAZ area and flow density in patients
Item Involved eye Contralateral eye P value* Foveal avascular zone area (mm2) 0.31 ± 0.12 0.25 ± 0.12 0.397 Vessel density (%) Superficial parafovea Superior 43.46 ± 3.97 50.31 ± 4.11 0.008 Inferior 41.83 ± 4.46 49.80 ± 3.89 0.004 Deep parafovea Superior 49.70 ± 4.00 51.75 ± 4.85 0.404 Inferior 49.79 ± 3.64 50.06 ± 5.47 0.915 Superficial perifovea Superior 40.07 ± 4.29 46.97 ± 3.66 0.007 Inferior 39.44 ± 4.31 46.81 ± 3.40 0.004 Deep perifovea Superior 43.04 ± 5.16 47.34 ± 7.11 0.220 Inferior 40.10 ± 6.94 45.69 ± 6.10 0.136 Peripapillary Superior 45.03 ± 3.84 51.30 ± 3.28 0.007 Inferior 45.43 ± 1.99 50.09 ± 5.38 0.054 Note. *Analyzed using Student’s t test. -
Although no significant difference was found in the average GCC thickness (superior P = 0.097; inferior P = 0.055), FLV and GLV of GCC were significantly higher in the affected eyes (both P < 0.001, Table 3, Figure 1A4, B4). No significant difference was found in RNFL thickness (superior P = 0.900, inferior P = 0.528, Figure 1A5, B5).
Table 3. Quantitative analysis of GCC thickness and RNFL thickness in patients
Item Involved eye Contralateral eye P value* Superior GCC (μm) 87.57 ± 8.48 94.43 ± 5.47 0.097 Inferior GCC (μm) 85.57 ± 7.89 93.43 ± 5.74 0.055 FLV (%) 9.75 ± 2.09 0.51 ± 0.55 < 0.001 GLV (%) 12.11 ± 2.74 3.64 ± 3.47 < 0.001 Superior RNFL (μm) 96.71 ± 10.19 97.29 ± 5.91 0.900 Inferior RNFL (μm) 98.29 ± 11.31 95.00 ± 5.90 0.528 Note. *Analyzed using t-test; GCC, ganglion cell complex; FLV, focal loss volume; GLV, global loss volume; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer. -
Correlation analyses between all variables were conducted. Superficial retinal blood flow was inversely correlated with FLV as well as GLV (Table 4). No correlation was found among the FAZ area, deep retinal blood flow, or RNFL thickness (not listed).
Table 4. Correlation between GCC and retinal blood flow
Item Superior GCC Inferior GCC FLV GLV Superficial parafovea superior VD 0.496 (0.071) 0.532 (0.050) −0.671 (0.009) −0.715 (0.004) Superficial parafovea inferior VD 0.597 (0.024) 0.491 (0.074) −0.760 (0.002) −0.774 (0.001) Superficial perifovea superior VD 0.527 (0.053) 0.541 (0.046) −0.772 (0.001) −0.774 (0.001) Superficial perifovea inferior VD 0.565 (0.035) 0.544 (0.045) −0.818 (< 0.001) −0.868 (< 0.001) Peripapillary superior VD 0.417 (0.138) 0.435 (0.120) −0.676 (0.008) −0.517 (0.058) Peripapillary inferior VD 0.082 (0.780) 0.210 (0.471) −0.516 (0.059) −0.323 (0.261) Note. *Analyzed using Pearson’s coefficient of correlation and presented with Pearson’s r (P value); Statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) are bold faced; GCC, ganglion cell complex; FLV, focal loss volume; GLV, global loss volume; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer.
doi: 10.3967/bes2020.021
Macular Perfusion Changes and Ganglion Cell Complex Loss in Patients with Silicone Oil-related Visual Loss
-
Abstract:
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate macular perfusion changes and ganglion cell complex (GCC) loss in patients with unexplained visual loss following vitrectomy and silicone oil (SO) tamponade, and to evaluate the correlation between retinal blood flow and GCC loss using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods This retrospective study included seven eyes (seven patients) with unexpected visual loss after vitrectomy and SO tamponade. OCTA was used to evaluate the alterations in retinal vessel density (VD) in the superficial capillary plexus (SCP), deep capillary plexus (DCP), and radial peripapillary capillary plexus (RPCP). OCT was used to measure the thickness of GCC and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL). Medical records of patients were reviewed. Results Quantitative analysis of OCTA images revealed a significant reduction in SCP VD in the affected eyes compared with the controls (all sections P < 0.05). No difference was found in GCC thickness, but FLV (focal loss volume) and GLV (global loss volume) were significantly higher in the affected eyes (both P < 0.001). SCP VD was inversely correlated with FLV and GLV. Conclusions Silicone oil-related severe visual loss was associated with superficial retinal microvasculature damage and ganglion cell apoptosis. -
Figure 1. Representative OCTA and OCT images of one patient with SO-related visual loss (A1–A5: unaffected fellow eye, B1–B5: affected eye). (A1, B1) The macular superficial vessel density. (A2, B2) Morphology of the macula was normal on B-scan. (A3, B3) The radial peripapillary capillary plexus vessel density. (A4, B4) The ganglion cell complex significance map. The color coding for the normative display uses a green (within normal range), yellow (borderline normal range) and red (outside normal range). (A5, B5) The optic nerve head (ONH) results showed peripapillary RNFL thickness. Warmer colors represent relatively thicker regions and cooler colors represent relatively thinner regions.
Table 1. Summary of cases of SO-related visual loss
Patient Age (years) Sex Eye Refractive power (diopter) Macular status BCVA during SO tamponade BCVA after SO removal When visual loss was noticed 1 56 M OD −6.50 Off 0.50 0.04 1 month after SO tamponade 2 62 F OD −4 Off 0.40 0.05 After SO removal 3 48 M OS −6 On 0.80 0.02 After SO removal 4 58 F OD −4.25 Off 0.15 0.05 1.5 months after SO tamponade 5 57 M OD −4 Off 0.30 0.05 1 month after SO tamponade 6 30 M OD −8 On 0.60 0.10 After SO removal 7 50 F OD −9 On 1.00 0.02 1 month after SO tamponade Average 51.60 ± 10.60 −5.96 ± 2.01 0.54 ± 0.29 0.05 ± 0.03 Note. BCVA: best corrected visual acuity; SO: silicone oil; M: male; F: female. Table 2. Quantitative analysis of FAZ area and flow density in patients
Item Involved eye Contralateral eye P value* Foveal avascular zone area (mm2) 0.31 ± 0.12 0.25 ± 0.12 0.397 Vessel density (%) Superficial parafovea Superior 43.46 ± 3.97 50.31 ± 4.11 0.008 Inferior 41.83 ± 4.46 49.80 ± 3.89 0.004 Deep parafovea Superior 49.70 ± 4.00 51.75 ± 4.85 0.404 Inferior 49.79 ± 3.64 50.06 ± 5.47 0.915 Superficial perifovea Superior 40.07 ± 4.29 46.97 ± 3.66 0.007 Inferior 39.44 ± 4.31 46.81 ± 3.40 0.004 Deep perifovea Superior 43.04 ± 5.16 47.34 ± 7.11 0.220 Inferior 40.10 ± 6.94 45.69 ± 6.10 0.136 Peripapillary Superior 45.03 ± 3.84 51.30 ± 3.28 0.007 Inferior 45.43 ± 1.99 50.09 ± 5.38 0.054 Note. *Analyzed using Student’s t test. Table 3. Quantitative analysis of GCC thickness and RNFL thickness in patients
Item Involved eye Contralateral eye P value* Superior GCC (μm) 87.57 ± 8.48 94.43 ± 5.47 0.097 Inferior GCC (μm) 85.57 ± 7.89 93.43 ± 5.74 0.055 FLV (%) 9.75 ± 2.09 0.51 ± 0.55 < 0.001 GLV (%) 12.11 ± 2.74 3.64 ± 3.47 < 0.001 Superior RNFL (μm) 96.71 ± 10.19 97.29 ± 5.91 0.900 Inferior RNFL (μm) 98.29 ± 11.31 95.00 ± 5.90 0.528 Note. *Analyzed using t-test; GCC, ganglion cell complex; FLV, focal loss volume; GLV, global loss volume; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer. Table 4. Correlation between GCC and retinal blood flow
Item Superior GCC Inferior GCC FLV GLV Superficial parafovea superior VD 0.496 (0.071) 0.532 (0.050) −0.671 (0.009) −0.715 (0.004) Superficial parafovea inferior VD 0.597 (0.024) 0.491 (0.074) −0.760 (0.002) −0.774 (0.001) Superficial perifovea superior VD 0.527 (0.053) 0.541 (0.046) −0.772 (0.001) −0.774 (0.001) Superficial perifovea inferior VD 0.565 (0.035) 0.544 (0.045) −0.818 (< 0.001) −0.868 (< 0.001) Peripapillary superior VD 0.417 (0.138) 0.435 (0.120) −0.676 (0.008) −0.517 (0.058) Peripapillary inferior VD 0.082 (0.780) 0.210 (0.471) −0.516 (0.059) −0.323 (0.261) Note. *Analyzed using Pearson’s coefficient of correlation and presented with Pearson’s r (P value); Statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) are bold faced; GCC, ganglion cell complex; FLV, focal loss volume; GLV, global loss volume; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer. -
[1] Donati S, Caprani SM, Airaghi G, et al. Vitreous substitutes: the present and the future. BioMed research international, 2014; 2014, 351804. [2] Miller JB, Papakostas TD, Vavvas DG. Complications of emulsified silicone oil after retinal detachment repair. Semin Ophthalmol, 2014; 29, 312−8. doi: 10.3109/08820538.2014.962181 [3] Newsom RS, Johnston R, Sullivan PM, et al. Sudden visual loss after removal of silicone oil. Retina, 2004; 24, 871−7. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200412000-00005 [4] Herbert EN, Habib M, Steel D, et al. Central scotoma associated with intraocular silicone oil tamponade develops before oil removal. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2006; 244, 248−52. doi: 10.1007/s00417-005-0076-6 [5] Cazabon S, Groenewald C, Pearce IA, et al. Visual loss following removal of intraocular silicone oil. Br J Ophthalmol, 2005; 89, 799−802. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.053561 [6] Dogramaci M, Williams K, Lee E, et al. Foveal light exposure is increased at the time of removal of silicone oil with the potential for phototoxicity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2013; 251, 35−9. doi: 10.1007/s00417-012-2033-5 [7] EN H, DA L, TH W. Loss of vision once silicone oil has been removed. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2005; 25, 808−9. [8] Moya R, Chandra A, Banerjee PJ, et al. The incidence of unexplained visual loss following removal of silicone oil. Eye (Lond), 2015; 29, 1477−82. doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.135 [9] Christensen UC, la Cour M. Visual loss after use of intraocular silicone oil associated with thinning of inner retinal layers. Acta Ophthalmol, 2012; 90, 733−7. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.02248.x [10] Roca JA, Wu L, Berrocal M, et al. Un-explained visual loss following silicone oil removal: results of the Pan American Collaborative Retina Study (PACORES) Group. Int J Retina Vitreous, 2017; 3, 26. doi: 10.1186/s40942-017-0079-6 [11] Scheerlinck LM, Schellekens PA, Liem AT, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of unexplained visual loss after intraocular silicone oil for macula-on retinal detachment. Retina, 2016; 36, 342−50. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000711 [12] van Dijk HW, Verbraak FD, Stehouwer M, et al. Association of visual function and ganglion cell layer thickness in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 and no or minimal diabetic retinopathy. Vision Res, 2011; 51, 224−8. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.08.024 [13] Anraku A, Enomoto N, Takeyama A, et al. Baseline thickness of macular ganglion cell complex predicts progression of visual field loss. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2014; 252, 109−15. doi: 10.1007/s00417-013-2527-9 [14] Jia Y, Bailey ST, Hwang TS, et al. Quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography of vascular abnormalities in the living human eye. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112, E2395−402. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500185112 [15] Spaide RF, Klancnik JM Jr, Cooney MJ. Retinal vascular layers imaged by fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography angiography. JAMA Ophthalmol, 2015; 133, 45−50. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3616 [16] Winter M, Eberhardt W, Scholz C, et al. Failure of potassium siphoning by Müller cells a new hypothesis of perfluorocarbon liquid-induced retinopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000; 41, 256−61. [17] Kaneko H, Takayama K, Asami T, et al. Cytokine profiling in the sub-silicone oil fluid after vitrectomy surgeries for refractory retinal diseases. Sci Rep, 2017; 7, 2640. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03124-x [18] Asaria RH, Kon CH, Bunce C, et al. Silicone oil concentrates fibrogenic growth factors in the retro-oil fluid. Br J Ophthalmol, 2004; 88, 1439−42. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2003.040402 [19] Refojo MF, Leong FL, Chung H, et al. Extraction of Retinol and Cholesterol by Intraocular Silicone Oils. Ophthalmology, 1988; 95, 614−8. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(88)33132-5 [20] Azzolini C, Docchio F, Brancato R, et al. Interactions between Light and Vitreous Fluid Substitutes. Arch Ophthalmol, 1992; 110, 1468−71. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080220130034 [21] Osborne NN, Kamalden TA, Majid ASA, et al. Light Effects on Mitochondrial Photosensitizers in Relation to Retinal Degeneration. Neurochem Res, 2010; 35, 2027−34. doi: 10.1007/s11064-010-0273-5 [22] Osborne NN, Lascaratos G, Bron AJ, et al. A hypothesis to suggest that light is a risk factor in glaucoma and the mitochondrial optic neuropathies. British J Ophthalmol, 2006; 90, 237−41. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.082230 [23] Yamada K, Kaneko H, Tsunekawa T, et al. Silicone oil-associated retinal light exposure under a surgical microscope. Acta Ophthalmol, 2019; 97, e742−6. [24] Srinivasan S, Pritchard N, Sampson GP, et al. Focal loss volume of ganglion cell complex in diabetic neuropathy. Clin Exp Optom, 2016; 99, 526−34. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12379 [25] Tan O, Chopra V, Lu AT, et al. Detection of macular ganglion cell loss in glaucoma by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmol, 2009; 116, 2305−14. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.05.025 [26] Caramoy A, Droege KM, Kirchhof B, et al. Retinal layers measurements in healthy eyes and in eyes receiving silicone oil-based endotamponade. Acta Ophthalmol, 2014; 92, e292−7. doi: 10.1111/aos.12307 [27] Shalchi Z, Mahroo OA, Shunmugam M, et al. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography findings in long-term silicone oil-related visual loss. Retina, 2015; 35, 555−63. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000325 [28] Roldán-Pallarés M, Musa AS, Hernández-Montero J, et al. Retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Retina, 2013; 33, 1528−39. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318285cbef [29] Iwase T, Kobayashi M, Yamamoto K, et al. Changes in blood flow on optic nerve head after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2016; 57, 6223−33. doi: 10.1167/iovs.16-20577 [30] Wang H, Xu X, Sun X, et al. Macular perfusion changes assessed with optical coherence tomography angiography after vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2019; 257, 733−40. doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04273-7 [31] Provis JM. Development of the primate retinal vasculature. Prog Retin Eye Res, 2001; 20, 799−821. doi: 10.1016/S1350-9462(01)00012-X