Evidence Hub

Novel Vitreous Substitutes in Animal and Human Models: A Systematic Review

Solish D, Huo L, Jin TS, Hall B, You EL, Popovic MM, Forman A, Shoichet M et al.

BioMed research international, 2026

15 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Vitreous substitutes are crucial adjuncts during vitreoretinal surgery for retinal detachment, macular holes, and vitreous hemorrhage. However, current vitreous substitutes pose limitations, including but not limited to their postoperative decrease in visual sharpness, nonfavorable refractive indices, and complications such as glaucoma, cataract, and retinal toxicity.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the biological, physical, and clinical properties of novel experimental vitreous substitutes in animal and human models. We performed a systematic search on Ovid Medline, Embase, and Scopus from January 1, 1990, to October 10, 2025. Studies were included if they reported on any of the following three aspects: optical properties, biological interactions, or clinical outcomes.

Results: Out of 11,045 search results, 37 studies investigating novel hydrogels (n = 15), polymers (n = 5), liquids (n = 5), and devices (n = 12) were included. Among these, 16/37 substitutes had > 80% success in tamponade of retinal detachments, 12/37 showed high tissue biocompatibility, 15/37 demonstrated low ocular inflammation, 13/37 exhibited optical properties similar to native vitreous, and 14/37 were associated with no significant changes in intraocular pressure.

Conclusions: Novel experimental vitreous substitutes, such as UV-CHA, Vitargus ABV-1701, PanaceaGel SPG-178, E10KDC18, or FCVB, show the most promising biological, optical, and physical properties for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 15 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free