Subretinal silicone oil: OCT imaging findings and surgical management of a rare and unusual iatrogenic complication of retinal detachment surgery
- Emma Linton and
- Kirti Jasani
- Ophthalmology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Correspondence to Emma Linton; Emmalinton@nhs.net
Abstract
A man in his 50s underwent vitrectomy surgery for a macular off retinal detachment which was complicated by intraoperative hypotony and suprachoroidal haemorrhage, resulting in the use of silicone oil tamponade. Postoperatively, several retained cysts of fluid were seen underneath the retina, one of which was large and close to the macular. Imaging was used to determine that this was likely retained silicone oil. Given the potential of migration to the macular and retinal toxicity, the decision was made to remove the larger oil bubbles under the retina. We explain how the oil may have got under the retina in this unusual case, how we dealt with it and discuss other cases of different substances under the retina and their appearance on ocular imaging.
Background
Silicone oil is commonly used in retinal detachment surgery as a long-term tamponade and has a number of recognised complications including band keratopathy, cataract and raised intraocular pressure. Small droplets of emulsified silicone oil have been reported to migrate into the intraretinal and subretinal spaces. However, there is a paucity of reports describing large fresh bubbles of retained silicone oil under the retina immediately after retinal detachment surgery, such as in this case.
It is not entirely clear how this occurred in our patient, but we hypothesise why and explain our surgical approach for removing the oil bubbles.
Case presentation
A man in his 50s was referred to eye casualty by his optician complaining of floaters and foggy vision in his right eye. He was a fit and well man with no significant previous medical or ophthalmic history.
On examination, his visual acuity was reduced to 1.24 logMAR at 2 m compared with 0.00 logMAR in his left eye. The patient was phakic with no lens opacity. He had tobacco dust in the vitreous of his right eye and fundus examination revealed a macular off retinal detachment with a superonasal horseshoe tear. Examination of his left fundus was unremarkable.
He underwent a right pars plana vitrectomy using the 25 Gauge Alcon Constellation system (Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas). After routine vitrectomy, retinal breaks were identified and marked with diathermy. Subretinal fluid was then drained prior to endolaser retinopexy around the retinal breaks. Fluid air exchange was performed and while completing the peripheral endolaser, the infusion line was displaced and the eye became hypotonous. The lens became temporarily opacified impeding the view of the retina. As the view cleared a large macular sparing suprachoroidal haemorrhage was noted. Silicone oil 1000 cs was inserted as tamponade and all ports were sutured. At the end of the surgery, the retina appeared flat.
When the patient was reviewed the following day his vision was 1.0 logMAR in the right eye, intraocular pressure was 13 mm Hg and the suprachoroidal haemorrhage had almost fully resolved aside from a small residual area superiorly. The retina was otherwise flat with an underfill of silicone oil at 80%. However, some bubbles were noted under the retina in a number of locations, the largest of which was just below the superotemporal arcade.
Investigations
Optos colour images (Optos, California) (figure 1) and Heidelberg optical coherence tomography (OCT) images (Heidelberg, Germany) (figure 2) of the right eye on day 1 postoperatively demonstrate the subretinal bubbles (arrows). The OCT (figure 2) demonstrates a large convex subretinal elevation with hyporeflective choroidal shadow at the edges of the bubble (arrow). There are also a number of smaller subretinal bubbles seen around the posterior pole (arrows).
Optos colour photo of the right eye taken on day one post-op, demonstrating sub-retinal silicone oil bubbles (arrows).
Heidelberg optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the right eye on day 1 postoperative showing the subretinal retained silicone oil (star).
Differential diagnosis
Due to the morphology of the bubble on OCT, we suspected that this was retained silicone oil. Retained perflourocarbon liquid (PFCL) can also have a similar appearance but this was not used during the surgery. Subretinal fluid would not form a convex bubble with this morphology.
Treatment
We initially decided to monitor the subretinal bubbles to allow the eye time to settle and to see whether they migrated or dispersed. Follow-up OCT and OPTOS images 3 weeks later demonstrated persistence of the subretinal bubbles and no migration or shrinkage. Due to their proximity to the macular and fears regarding possible toxicity to the retina, it was necessary to remove them. We, therefore, listed the patient for removal of silicone oil and removal of the sub retinal retained bubbles.
He had surgery 8 weeks after the initial surgery. Images show intraoperative findings (figure 3). A small drainage retinotomy was made over the main bubble, and oil bubbles were visibly released, confirming our suspicions that the liquid was retained silicone oil. A further retinotomy was made over the other large inferior retained oil bubble which was successfully drained. Fluid air exchange successfully flattened the retina and a temporary gas tamponade was used.
Intraoperative imaging showing drainage of subretinal silicone oil through a retinotomy.
Outcome and follow-up
At 7 weeks post removal of silicone oil, vision in the right eye was 0.5 logMAR unaided. The patient had developed a grade 2 posterior subcapsular cataract. Despite the cataract, the fundal view was still adequate to ascertain that the retina was flat and all gas had dispersed from the vitreous cavity. Imaging shows resolution of the two large subretinal oil bubbles (figure 4). The patient was listed for cataract extraction to be done approximately 3 months later.
Optos colour photo of the right eye 7 weeks after silicone oil removal demonstrating resolution of the two large subretinal oil bubbles.
Discussion
Various liquids and tamponade agents are used during retinal detachment surgery, and surgeons must take great care to avoid them being retained in the vitreous cavity or migrating subretinally. There are a number of reports in the literature demonstrating retained heavy liquid (PFCL) under the retina and techniques described to remove it.1–6 However, there is a paucity in the literature of similar problems with silicone oil.
Retained silicone oil has a similar OCT appearance to retained heavy liquid, and had both of these substances been used during the surgery, in our case, it may have been difficult to determine preoperatively what the offending liquid was. An article by Zacharias et al nicely demonstrated the key features of retained heavy liquid including elevation of the RPE/heavy liquid interface, a hyper-reflective halo around the bubble, a hyper-reflective dot on the apex of the bubble and a complete septum if multiple bubbles are present.2 Unfortunately, they only had one case with silicone oil subretinally, but this case had a hyper-reflective halo and a choroidal shadow at the edge of the bubble on OCT scan similar to the PFCL cases but in contrast lacked the complete septum seen in subretinal PFCL.2 The OCT image (figure 2) of our patient did not demonstrate the elevation of the RPE/oil interface or apical hyper-reflective dot seen with PFCL.
Based on the intraoperative events and the characteristics of silicone oil, we believe that the silicone oil bubbles entered the subretinal space inadvertently during the surgery. There was no full thickness macula hole or optic disc pit that would allow for direct silicone oil (SO) migration, and so it is most likely the oil entered via the retinal break.7 Postoperative intraretinal migration of SO although documented usually results in multiple small intraretinal cystic lesions. We do not think it is possible in this case as the subretinal oil was seen on postoperative day 1, which means migration through the retina would have happened very quickly, and also the size of the subretinal oil bubbles was too large to have passed through intact retina. We hypothesise that because of the low density of 1000 cs silicone oil, it may have been forced via a jet stream during injection of the silicone oil through the retinotomy site, and postoperatively when the patient postured face down, this became dispersed into smaller bubbles pushed into the peripheral retina. The combination of the complexity of the fundus, suboptimal surgical view and improper direction and force of the silicone oil injection are likely to have contributed to this result. These issues stemmed from the iatrogenic dislodging of the infusion port during eye rotation and indentation to complete the peripheral endolaser of the retinal break, which led to hypotony and suboptimal view due to lens clouding when pressure was re-established. The authors also recognise that silicone oil can differ in terms of quality depending on its brand and manufacturer and surgeons should take this into consideration when using this tamponade particularly in the context of complex surgeries, possible open breaks and limited surgical view.
There is much discussion about the possible toxicity of silicone oil on retinal cells, especially when left in the eye for extended periods of time and what the potential aetiology is.8–11 In our patient, we were concerned that if we left the bubbles in situ, they could either migrate under the central macular and affect visual acuity or cause retinal toxicity. As we needed to perform surgery for silicone oil removal from the cavity at some stage, we decided to remove the larger subretinal bubbles at the same time, hopefully reducing the chance of complications or sight loss in the future. The smaller bubbles were left in place as multiple retinotomies would pose risk of further detachment or proliferative vitreoretinopathy. As the smaller bubbles are outside of the arcades, they are unlikely to cause visual symptoms. Thus far, the patient’s vision remains stable and no complications from removal of the subretinal oil have occurred.
Patient’s perspective
I felt nervous before and during the surgery when I realised there was a complication.
I was sad that the procedure was not straight forward, but felt reassured with the care received and on how it was handled.
I am glad to have a reasonable level of vision in this eye after the last operation and that things have worked out well despite the initial hiccup.
Learning points
-
Vitreoretinal surgeons performing retinal detachment surgery must be cautious when injecting intraoperative liquids to do so slowly and away from the direction of retinal breaks.
-
Assisting surgeons should be careful when indenting near the infusion cannula in a soft eye to prevent dislodgement and subsequent hypotony.
-
Retained silicone oil bubbles may potentially migrate underneath the retina or cause retinal toxicity and surgeons should consider removing them.
-
Subretinal retained fluids have differing characteristics on optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging which can aid clinicians in diagnosis.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Footnotes
-
Contributors Both authors contributed to the conception, drafting and revising of the article and give their final approval of the version to be published. EL: looked after the patient, gathered case information and images, drafted the case report and submitted it. KJ: looked after the patient, took patient’s consent for publication, redrafted/amended the case report and gave final approval for submission.
-
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
-
Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- © BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
References
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer