Clinical Consequences of the Use of Highly Purified Silicone Oil: Comparative study of highly and less purified silicone oil

A minimum specification dataset for liquid ocular endotamponades: recommendations by a European expert panel

PURPOSE

To propose a minimum specification dataset to characterize liquid ocular endotamponades (OEs), namely silicone oil (SO), heavy SO (HSO), perfluorodecalin (PFD), and perfluoro-octane (PFO), in terms of physicochemical properties, purity and available evidence of safety, in line with ISO16672:2020.

METHODS

An evidence-based consensus using the expert panel technique was conducted. Two facilitators led a committee of 11 European experts. Facilitators prepared a dataset for each compound including the list of specifications relevant for the safety, identified by the group members on the basis of expertise and a comprehensive literature review. Each item was ranked by each member using a 9-point scale from 1 "absolutely to not include" to 9 "absolutely to include" in two rounds followed by discussion. Only items reaching consensus (score ≥ 7 from ≥ 75% of members) were included in the final datasets.

RESULTS

For all OEs, consensus was reached to include manufacturer, density, refractive index, chemical composition, dynamic viscosity, interfacial and surface tension, endotoxins, in vitro cytotoxicity assessment, and any evidence from ex vivo and/or in vivo tests for safety assessment. Additional specifications were added for SO (molecular weight distribution, content of oligosiloxanes with MW ≤ 1000 g/mol, spectral transmittance) and PFD/PFO (% of pure PFD/PFO in the final product, vapor pressure, chemical analyses performed for safety assessment).

CONCLUSION

The proposed evidence-based minimum specification datasets for SO, HSO, PFD, and PFO have the potential to provide surgeons and health service purchasers with an easily available overview of the most relevant information for the safety assessment of OEs.

Ala®sil chemical characterization and toxicity evaluation: an example of the need for the Medical Device Regulation 2017/745

Introduction: Ala®sil infusion was on the market for clinical use under the Medical Devices Directive (MDD) 93/42/EEC as an irrigating solution based on polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The product was withdrawn in 2016, and to the best of our knowledge, it did not cause any health damage. Methods: A bibliographic review and experimental analysis were conducted to evaluate whether this CE-marked product could have been used in patients under the current Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745. Analytical results from gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and matrixassisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI) were performed. Citotoxicity studies were also carried out. Results: Only one study related to Ala®sil clinical use was found, describing a pilot series of five patients. The authors rated the product as not helpful in three out of the five cases for internal searching of retinal breaks and in four out of the five cases for drainage of subretinal fluid. No other scientific papers or documentation was found regarding Ala®sil's safety. Nevertheless, the product was introduced in the market after achieving the CE marking. GC-MS and MALDI showed that the polymer has a low molecular weight of 1,000 g/mol. Several linear and cyclic low-molecular-weight components (LMWCs) were identified as impurities ranging from L3 to D8, with a molecular weight below 600 g/mol. The Ala®sil sample was found to be cytotoxic after 24 h of cell culture but non-cytotoxic after 72 h, probably due to the cellular regeneration capacity of an immortalized cell line. Tissular cytotoxicity revealed an increased apoptosis rate but without morphological modifications. Discussion: Although Ala®sil cannot be classified as cytotoxic, this substance appears to increase retinal cell death processes. This study supports the notion that the MDDwas not functioning adequately to ensure the safety of medical devices. However, the current MDR 2017/745 imposes stricter standards to prevent the commercialization of medical devices without high-quality preclinical and clinical information, as well as precise clinical verification for their use, information not available for Ala®sil infusion.

[Visual acuity reduction and silicone oil tamponade]

Silicone oil is an established intraocular surgical aid, which enables the treatment of the most complex starting situations but no other alternative has been found; however, the available data indicate that an unclear loss of visual acuity during or after an intraocular silicone oil tamponade possibly occurs more frequently than assumed from the clinical routine. Various pathological mechanisms are under discussion as causes, but the exact causes are actually unclear. In addition to atrophic alterations in the optical coherence tomography (OCT) examination, there are a clear reduction in visual acuity and mostly a central scotoma with otherwise inconspicuous findings. Unclear loss of visual acuity can also occur after removal of the silicone oil. Whether this is caused by the same pathological mechanism is unclear. Furthermore, there are no reproducible risk factors that appear a priori to possibly cause an unclear loss of vision under silicone oil; however, oil removal as soon as possible and a good adjustment of the intraocular pressure are recommended by the authors. Overall, a silicone oil tamponade should be carefully weighed up even when using modern highly purified silicone oils and it should therefore continue to be reserved particularly for unfavorable initial situations or complicated courses with the necessity for a silicone oil tamponade. Against this background, a study for systematic recording and processing of cases of unclear loss of visual acuity after silicone oil tamponade seems to be meaningful.

Complications associated with the use of silicone oil in vitreoretinal surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Silicone oil (SO) still represents the main choice for long-term intraocular tamponade in complicated vitreoretinal surgery. This review compared the complications associated with the use of SO and other vitreous substitutes after pars plana vitrectomy in patients with different underlying diseases. Meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We retrieved randomized clinical trials (RCTs), retrospective case-control and cohort studies evaluating the risk of using SO, published between 1994 and 2020, conducting a computer-based search of the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase. Primary outcome was the rate of complications such as intraocular hypertension, retinal re-detachment, unexpected vision loss or hypotony. Secondary outcome was to compare the rate of adverse events of different SO viscosities, especially emulsification. Forty-three articles were included. There were significant differences in intraocular hypertension (p = 0.0002, OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.27-2.18) and the rate of retinal re-detachment (p < 0.0009, OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.50-0.64) between SO and other agents, including placebo. However, there were no differences in other complication rates. Silicone oil (SO)-emulsification rate was non-significantly higher in low than high SO viscosity, and results from other complications were comparable in both groups. The high quality of most of the studies included in this study is noteworthy, which provides some certainty to the conclusions. Among them is the high variability of the SO residence time. The fact that ocular hypertension and not hypotension is related to SO use. A clear relationship is not found for the so-called unexplained vision loss, which affects a significant percentage of eyes. Re-detachment cases are less if SO is used and that surprisingly there does not seem to be a relationship in the percentage of emulsification between the low- and high-viscosity silicones. All these data warrant more standardized prospective studies.

Retinal electrophysiological changes related to early versus late silicone oil removal

PURPOSE

To compare between the effect of early (3 months) and late (6 months) silicone removal on the electroretinogram records.

METHODS

Thirty-four eyes with complex primary rhegmatogenous macula off retinal detachment undergone vitrectomy. Silicone oil was removed after 3 months in group I and after 6 months in group II. Scotopic and photopic ERGs, pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and multifocal ERG (mfERG) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were recorded for all eyes RESULTS: Preoperative mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured was 0.93 ± 0.05 in group I and 0.9 ± 0.08 in group II. One month after silicone removal, mean BCVA was 0.20 ± 0.04 and 0.18 ± 0.02 in groups I and II respectively. Before silicone oil removal the electroretinographic a- and b-waves were greatly reduced in both groups with no significant difference between them. One month after removal of silicone oil, the electroretinographic a- and b-waves increased in both groups with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.46 and 0.23 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The amplitudes of the ERGs increase after removal of silicone oil tamponade with no difference between early (3 months) and late (6 months) removal.

Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy

BACKGROUND

Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery to restore normal anatomy and to stabilize or improve vision. PVR usually occurs in association with recurrent RD (that is, after initial retinal re-attachment surgery), but occasionally may be associated with primary RD. Either way, for both circumstances a tamponade agent (gas or silicone oil) is needed during surgery to reduce the rate of postoperative recurrent RD.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the relative safety and effectiveness of various tamponade agents used with surgery for RD complicated by PVR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2019), Embase (January 1980 to January 2019), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2019), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on participants undergoing surgery for RD associated with PVR that compared various tamponade agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search results independently. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four RCTs (601 participants) that provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Three RCTs provided data on visual acuity, two reported on macular attachment, one on retinal reattachment and another two on adverse events such as RD, worsening visual acuity and intraocular pressure. Study Characteristics Participants' characteristics varied across studies and across intervention groups, with an age range between 21 to 89 years, and were predominantly men. The Silicone Study was conducted in the USA and consisted of two RCTs: (silicone oil versus sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) gas tamponades; 151 participants) and (silicone oil versus perfluropropane (C₃F₈) gas tamponades; 271 participants). The third RCT compared heavy silicone oil (a mixture of perfluorohexyloctane (F₆H₈) and silicone oil) with standard silicone oil (either 1000 centistokes or 5000 centistokes; 94 participants). The fourth RCT compared 1000 centistokes with 5000 centistokes silicone oil in 85 participants. We assessed most RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for most 'Risk of bias' domains. Findings Although SF₆ gas was reported to be associated with worse anatomic and visual outcomes than was silicone oil at one year (quantitative data not reported), at two years, silicone oil compared to SF₆ gas showed no evidence of a difference in visual acuity (33% versus 51%; risk ratio (RR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.66; 1 RCT, 87 participants; low-certainty evidence). At one year, another RCT comparing silicone oil and C₃F₈ gas found no evidence of a difference in visual acuity between the two groups (41% versus 39%; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). In a third RCT, participants treated with standard silicone oil compared to those receiving heavy silicone oil also showed no evidence of a difference in the change in visual acuity at one year, measured on logMAR scale ( mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.29; 1 RCT; 93 participants; low-certainty evidence). The fourth RCT with 5000-centistoke and 1000-centistoke comparisons did not report data on visual acuity. For macular attachment, participants treated with silicone oil may probably experience more favorable outcomes than did participants who received SF₆ at both one year (quantitative data not reported) and two years (58% versus 79%; RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86; 1 RCT; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence). In another RCT, silicone oil compared to C₃F₈ at one year found no evidence of difference in macular attachment (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 1 RCT, 264 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT that compared 5000 centistokes to 1000 centistoke reported that retinal reattachment was successful in 67 participants (78.8%) with first surgery and 79 participants (92.9%) with the second surgery, and no evidence of between-group difference (1 RCT; 85 participants; low-certainty evidence). The fourth RCT that compared standard silicone oil with heavy silicone oil did not report on macular attachment. Adverse events In one RCT (86 participants), those receiving standard 1000 centistoke silicone oil compared with those of the 5000 centistoke silicone oil showed no evidence of a difference in intraocular pressure elevation at 18 months (24% versus 22%; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence), visually significant cataract (49% versus 64%; RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.89; low-certainty evidence), and incidence of retina detachment after the removal of silicone oil (RR 0.36 95% CI 0.08 to 1.67; low-certainty evidence). Another RCT that compared standard silicone oil with heavy silicone oil suggests no difference in retinal detachment at one year (25% versus 22%; RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.48; 1 RCT; 186 participants; low-certainty evidence). Retinal detachment was not reported in the RCTs that compared silicone oil versus SF₆ and silicone oil versus to C₃F₈.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between C₃F₈ and silicone oil. Silicone oil may be better than SF₆ for macular attachment and other short-term outcomes. The choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient. The use of either C₃F₈ or standard silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Heavy silicone oil, which is not available for routine clinical use in the USA, may not demonstrate evidence of superiority over standard silicone oil.

Comparative Study of Chemical Composition, Molecular and Rheological Properties of Silicone Oil Medical Devices

Purpose

We evaluated chemical composition, and molecular and rheological properties in 10 commercially available silicone oils (SilOils), focusing on siloxane chains of low molecular weight (LMW components, LMWC) that are known to be “impurities” produced during the SilOil synthesis process.

Methods

We assessed the type of SilOil polymer and molecular weight distribution (MWD) by spectroscopy and conventional size exclusion chromatography, respectively. From the Cumulative MWD, we calculated the fractions of LMWC with molecular weight (M): ≤2000, ≤5000, and ≤10,000 g/mol. Due to the low MW, the content of LMWC with M ≤1000 g/mol was determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The dynamic viscosity (η) was assessed by rotational rheometry.

Results

For all SilOils, the polymer was polydimethylsiloxane. The samples differed significantly in terms of MWD and relative LMWC fractions. Specifically, the relative fraction of all LMWC (M ≤10,000 g/mol) ranged from 2.31% to 9.40% and the content of LMWC with M ≤1000 g/mol also varied significantly (range, 51–1151 ppm). The η values were different between the SilOils, and, for many of them, from the declared viscosity.

Conclusions

Commercially available SilOils differ significantly in molecular and rheologic features. These compounds contain a significant amount of LMWC, “impurities” generated during the synthesis process, acting as emulsifier, potentially inducing ocular inflammation and toxicity.

Translational Relevance

The amount of impurities in different SilOils may influence significantly their biocompatibility.

COHORT SAFETY AND EFFICACY STUDY OF SILURON2000 EMULSIFICATION-RESISTANT SILICONE OIL AND F4H5 IN THE TREATMENT OF FULL-THICKNESS MACULAR HOLE

Silicone oils that are easier to inject and remove with smaller-gauge instruments, and in surplus have a reduced propensity for emulsification, offer great potential in vitreoretinal procedures. Safety and efficacy of Siluron2000 silicone oil in treatment of full-thickness macular hole were compared with those of Siluron5000 oil. We also assessed the efficacy of perfluorobutylpentane in removing emulsified oil droplets from the eye using ultrasound imaging.

To evaluate safety and efficacy of using Siluron2000 silicone oil in the treatment of full-thickness macular hole by comparing its propensity to emulsify with emulsification of the “gold standard” Siluron5000, and to assess safety and efficacy of F4H5 (perfluorobutylpentane) in removing emulsified oil droplets from the eye.

Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy

BACKGROUND

Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery to restore normal anatomy and to stabilize or improve vision. PVR usually occurs in association with recurrent RD (that is, after initial retinal re-attachment surgery) but occasionally may be associated with primary RD. Either way, a tamponade agent (gas or silicone oil) is needed during surgery to reduce the rate of postoperative recurrent RD.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the relative safety and effectiveness of various tamponade agents used with surgery for retinal detachment (RD) complicated by proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing surgery for RD associated with PVR that compared various tamponade agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search results independently. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 516 participants from three RCTs. One study was conducted in the USA and consisted of two trials: the first trial randomized 151 adults to receive either silicone oil or sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas tamponades; and the second trial randomized 271 adults to receive either silicone oil or perfluropropane (C3F8) gas tamponades. The third trial was a multi-center international trial and randomized 94 participants (age range not specified) to receive heavy silicone oil (a mixture of perfluorohexyloctane (F6H8) and silicone oil) versus standard silicone oil (either 1000 centistokes or 5000 centistokes, per the surgeon's preference).In participants with RD associated with PVR, outcomes after pars plana vitrectomy and infusion of either silicone oil, perfluropropane gas, or sulfur hexafluoride gas appeared comparable for a broad variety of cases. There were no significant differences between silicone oil and perfluoropropane gas in terms of the proportion of participants achieving at least 5/200 visual acuity (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.31) or achieving macular attachment (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15) at a minimum of one year. Although sulfur hexafluoride gas was reported to be associated with significantly worse anatomic and visual outcomes than was silicone oil at one year (quantitative data not reported), there were no significant differences between silicone oil and sulfur hexafluoride gas in terms of achieving at least 5/200 visual acuity at two years (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.93 to 2.66). For macular attachment, participants treated with silicone oil received significantly more favourable outcomes than did participants who received sulfur hexafluoride at both one year (quantitative data not reported) and two years (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.86). The first two trials did not perform any sample size calculation or power detection. In the third trial, which had a power of 80% to detect differences, heavy silicone oil was not shown to be superior to standard silicone oil. There were no significant differences between standard silicone oil and heavy silicone oil in the change in visual acuity at one year using adjusted mean logMAR visual acuity (mean difference -0.03 logMAR; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.29). Adverse events were not reported for the first two trials. For the third trial, only the total number of adverse events was reported, and adverse events for each group were not specified. Of the 94 participants, four died, 26 had recurrent retinal detachment, 22 developed glaucoma, four developed a cataract, and two had capsular fibrosis.All three trials employed adequate methods for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. None of the trials employed masking of participants and surgeons, and only the third trial masked outcome assessors. The first trial had a large portion of participants excluded from the final analyses, while the other two trials were at low risk of attrition bias. All trials appear to be free of reporting bias. The first two trials were funded by the National Eye Institute, and the third trial was funded by the German Research Foundation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of either perfluropropane or standard silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Because there do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between the two agents, the choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient. Heavy silicone oil, which is not available for routine clinical use in the USA, has not demonstrated evidence of superiority over standard silicone oil.

Towards an ideal biomaterial for vitreous replacement: Historical overview and future trends

Removal of the natural vitreous body from the eye and its substitution with a tamponade agent may be necessary in cases of complicated retinal detachment. Many materials have been variously proposed and tested over the years in an attempt to find an ideal vitreous substitute. This review highlights the evolution of research in the field of vitreous replacement and chronicles the main advances that have been made in such a context. The suitability and limitations of vitreous tamponade agents and substitutes in current clinical use are examined, and the future promise of experimentally tested biomaterials are described and discussed. Future trends in research are also considered and, specifically, the great potential of polymeric hydrogels is emphasized, as they seem to be very effective in closely mimicking the features of the natural vitreous and they could successfully act as long-term vitreous substitutes without inducing clinical complications in the patient's eye.

Tamponade in surgery for retinal detachment associated with proliferative vitreoretinopathy

BACKGROUND

Retinal detachment (RD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) often requires surgery. During surgery, a tamponade agent is needed to reduce the rate of recurrent retinal detachment.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to evaluate the benefits and adverse outcomes of surgery with various tamponade agents.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin America and Carribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (UKCTG). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 July 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing patients treated with various tamponade agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two individuals screened the search results independently. One study with two trials was eligible for inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

One study with two trials was included in the review. The first trial randomized 151 eyes to receive either silicone oil or sulfur hexafluoride (SF(6)) gas tamponades; the second trial randomized 271 eyes to receive either silicone oil or perfluropropane (C(3)F(8)) gas tamponades. In patients with RD associated with PVR, pars plana vitrectomy and infusion of either silicone oil or perfluropropane gas appear comparable for a broad variety of cases. Sulfur hexafluoride gas was associated with worse anatomic and visual outcomes than either silicone oil or perfluropropane gas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of either C(3)F(8) or silicone oil appears reasonable for most patients with RD associated with PVR. Because there do not appear to be any major differences in outcomes between the two agents, the choice of a tamponade agent should be individualized for each patient.

SUDDEN VISUAL LOSS AFTER REMOVAL OF SILICONE OIL

PURPOSE

Removal of silicone oil after vitreoretinal surgery reduces potential complications of glaucoma and cataract and improves visual function in 30% of patients. We report the clinical findings of a series of patients who experienced unexpected and permanent visual loss after removal of silicone oil.

METHODS

Seven patients with visual loss after removal of silicon oil were investigated with best-corrected Snellen visual acuity (BCVA) assessment, fundus biomicroscopy, fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, and electrophysiologic examination.

RESULTS

Six men and one woman (average age, 42.8 years.) presented with profound BCVA loss, averaging 4.7 Snellen lines (SD 1.4), after silicon oil removal. No other complications associated with oil removal were noted. The retina remained attached in all cases, no patient developed cystoid macular edema or epiretinal membrane, and optical coherence tomographic and fluorescein angiographic findings remained normal. Electrodiagnostic testing showed a range of abnormalities, with the majority of patients showing severe macular dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe a new phenomenon of unexpected visual loss after oil removal in patients with good visual potential. The pathogenesis remains obscure.

Biomaterials used in the posterior segment of the eye

The treatment of posterior segment eye disease and related conditions has improved greatly in recent years with the advent of new therapies, materials and devices. Vitreoretinal conditions, however, remain significant causes of blindness in the developed world. Biomaterials play a major role in the treatment of many of these disorders and the success rate of vitreoretinal surgery, especially in the repair of retinal detachment and related conditions, would increase with the introduction of new and improved materials. This review, which focuses on disorders that feature retinal detachment, briefly describes the anatomy of the eye and the nature and treatment of posterior segment eye disorders. The roles, required properties and suitability of the materials used in vitreoretinal surgery as scleral buckles, tamponade agents or drug delivery devices, are reviewed. Experimental approaches are discussed, along with the methods used for their evaluation, and future directions for biomaterial research in the posterior segment of the eye are considered.