ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Unexplained vision loss following silicone oil removal: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSudden, unexplained visual acuity loss has been reported following silicone oil (SO) removal. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled incidence of unexplained vision loss following SO removal (UVLSOR) and identify associated risk factors. SUBJECTS/
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2025 for studies reporting unexplained vision loss after SO removal following vitreoretinal surgery. Paired independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. The pooled incidence was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis.
resultsEight retrospective cohort studies (n = 1531 eyes; 54 events) were included. The pooled incidence of UVLSOR was 4.38% (95% CI: 2.42-7.82%; I² = 72.9%). Heterogeneity was substantial and largely reflected differences in underlying indication, tamponade characteristics, and case definitions; because only studies that specifically reported this complication were eligible, the pooled value likely overestimates the true population-level incidence. Vision loss typically occurred within 1-3 months post-removal and was defined as a loss of ≥2 Snellen lines without identifiable cause. Associated factors included longer SO tamponade duration, peri-tamponade ocular hypertension, and pre-removal indicators of inner retinal dysfunction on optical coherence tomography or multifocal electroretinography. Risk of bias was predominantly low-to-moderate, and certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.
conclusionsLow-to-moderate-certainty evidence supports an incidence of unexplained vision loss following SO removal of approximately 1 in 25 eyes among reported cohorts, with substantial heterogeneity. Because eligible studies were selected for reporting this complication, this figure should be interpreted as an upper-bound rather than a generalisable population-level risk. Clinicians should consider minimising SO tamponade duration when feasible and obtain imaging before and after removal to detect early structural changes.
Identifiers
42778671What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.