Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods

Purpose. To compare ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), Coulter counter, and B-scan ultrasonography in the evaluation of silicone oil (SO) emulsification. Methods. Patients who underwent primary pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and SO removal were included. U...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hongmei Zhao, Qian Chen, Jian Yu, Kaicheng Wu, Yuan Zong, Chunhui Jiang, Haohao Zhu, Gezhi Xu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8114530
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832547999009472512
author Hongmei Zhao
Qian Chen
Jian Yu
Kaicheng Wu
Yuan Zong
Chunhui Jiang
Haohao Zhu
Gezhi Xu
author_facet Hongmei Zhao
Qian Chen
Jian Yu
Kaicheng Wu
Yuan Zong
Chunhui Jiang
Haohao Zhu
Gezhi Xu
author_sort Hongmei Zhao
collection DOAJ
description Purpose. To compare ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), Coulter counter, and B-scan ultrasonography in the evaluation of silicone oil (SO) emulsification. Methods. Patients who underwent primary pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and SO removal were included. UBM images were acquired before the SO removal, and B-scan images were taken after removal. The number of droplets in the first and last 2 mL of washout fluid was analyzed using a Coulter counter. The correlations between these measurements were analyzed. Results. Thirty-four eyes received both UBM and Coulter counter analysis for the first 2 mL of washout fluid, and 34 underwent B-scan and Coulter counter analysis of the last 2 mL washout fluid. The mean UBM grading was 26.41 ± 9.71 (range: 1–36); the mean SO index obtained with B-scan was 5.25 ± 5.00% (range: 0.10–16.49%), and the mean number of SO droplets was 1.26 ± 2.45 × 107/mL and 3.34 ± 4.22 × 106/mL in the first and last 2 mL of washout fluid, respectively. There were significant correlations between UBM grading and SO droplets in the first 2 mL and between B-scan grading and SO droplets in the last 2 mL (all P<0.05). Conclusions. UBM, Coulter counter, and B-scan ultrasonography could all be used in the evaluation of SO emulsification, and their findings were comparable.
format Article
id doaj-art-8e5043c6504e46ad9b10c5627bb770a1
institution Kabale University
issn 2090-0058
language English
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-8e5043c6504e46ad9b10c5627bb770a12025-02-03T06:42:45ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-00582023-01-01202310.1155/2023/8114530Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied MethodsHongmei Zhao0Qian Chen1Jian Yu2Kaicheng Wu3Yuan Zong4Chunhui Jiang5Haohao Zhu6Gezhi Xu7Department of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision ScienceDepartment of OphthalmologyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision SciencePurpose. To compare ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), Coulter counter, and B-scan ultrasonography in the evaluation of silicone oil (SO) emulsification. Methods. Patients who underwent primary pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and SO removal were included. UBM images were acquired before the SO removal, and B-scan images were taken after removal. The number of droplets in the first and last 2 mL of washout fluid was analyzed using a Coulter counter. The correlations between these measurements were analyzed. Results. Thirty-four eyes received both UBM and Coulter counter analysis for the first 2 mL of washout fluid, and 34 underwent B-scan and Coulter counter analysis of the last 2 mL washout fluid. The mean UBM grading was 26.41 ± 9.71 (range: 1–36); the mean SO index obtained with B-scan was 5.25 ± 5.00% (range: 0.10–16.49%), and the mean number of SO droplets was 1.26 ± 2.45 × 107/mL and 3.34 ± 4.22 × 106/mL in the first and last 2 mL of washout fluid, respectively. There were significant correlations between UBM grading and SO droplets in the first 2 mL and between B-scan grading and SO droplets in the last 2 mL (all P<0.05). Conclusions. UBM, Coulter counter, and B-scan ultrasonography could all be used in the evaluation of SO emulsification, and their findings were comparable.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8114530
spellingShingle Hongmei Zhao
Qian Chen
Jian Yu
Kaicheng Wu
Yuan Zong
Chunhui Jiang
Haohao Zhu
Gezhi Xu
Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
Journal of Ophthalmology
title Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
title_full Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
title_fullStr Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
title_short Assessment of Silicone Oil Emulsification: A Comparison of Currently Applied Methods
title_sort assessment of silicone oil emulsification a comparison of currently applied methods
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8114530
work_keys_str_mv AT hongmeizhao assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT qianchen assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT jianyu assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT kaichengwu assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT yuanzong assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT chunhuijiang assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT haohaozhu assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods
AT gezhixu assessmentofsiliconeoilemulsificationacomparisonofcurrentlyappliedmethods