Evaluation of topical povidone-iodine in chronic suppurative otitis media. Vitrectomy with silicone oil or perfluoropropane gas in eyes with severe proliferative vitreoretinopathy: results of a randomized clinical trial. Silicone Study Report 2.
To evaluate if povidone-iodine (PVP-I) can be used topically in the treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media-tubotympanic disease and to compare it with ciprofloxacin hydrochloride ear drops.
                Prospective double-blind randomized study.
                Academic tertiary medical center.
                Forty patients with chronic suppurative otitis media were randomized into 2 groups.
                One group (19 patients) received 5% PVP-I ear drops, while the other group (21 patients) received 0.3% ciprofloxacin ear drops. Both were administered topically, 3 drops 3 times daily for 10 days. These patients were followed up at weekly intervals for up to 4 weeks after commencing therapy.
                Clinical improvement at the end of study was 88% in the PVP-I group and 90% in the ciprofloxacin group. The most commonly isolated organism was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In vitro resistance to ciprofloxacin was seen in 17% of organisms, while no resistance was seen for PVP-I.
                To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of PVP-I as a topical agent in the treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media. The results show that clinically, topical PVP-I is as effective as topical ciprofloxacin, with a superior advantage of having no in vitro drug resistance. Also, there is an added benefit of reduced cost of therapy. Between September 1987 and October 1990, 265 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and severe (with a classification of at least C-3) proliferative vitreoretinopathy were treated with vitrectomy and randomized to treatment with perfluoropropane gas or silicone oil; 131 eyes had undergone no prior vitrectomy (group 1) while 134 eyes had undergone vitrectomy with intraocular gas tamponade (group 2). At the last examination, there were no differences between perfluoropropane gas and silicone oil in achieving visual acuity greater than or equal to 5/200 (43% vs 45% for group 1, 38% vs 33% for group 2) and complete posterior retinal reattachment (73% vs 64% for group 1, 73% vs 61% for group 2). For group 1 eyes followed up for at least 18 months, there was an advantage favoring perfluoropropane gas in achieving complete posterior retinal reattachment (83% vs 60% at 36 months, P = .045). The rates of reoperation and keratopathy were similar, while hypotony was more prevalent in eyes randomized to perfluoropropane gas (group 2). Regardless of tamponade, groups 1 and 2 had similar anatomic and visual success. However, hypotony was twice as prevalent in group 2 (perfluoropropane), and the prevalence of keratopathy increased with follow-up in group 2 (either tamponade). Either tamponade produced better results than those seen with sulfur hexafluoride gas (Silicone Study Report 1).
The use of either C3F8 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.