Dergiler / Glokom Katarakt / 2021 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of Three Different Intraocular Lens Implantation Method for Eyes with Defi cient Capsular Support

Sayfa
74–82
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Future long-term studies comparing the different methods with a large number of patients may provide more information about the most appropriate method to use in eyes with insuffi cient capsular support.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare three different intraocular lens (IOL) implantation methods performed primary or secondary in eyes with defi cient capsular support.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The patients were fi rst separated into primary and secondary IOL implantation group (PIG and SIG, respectively), then divided into three subgroups among themselves as iris-claw IOL (IC-IOL), scleral fi xated IOL (SF-IOL), and anterior chamber IOL (AC-IOL).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Future long-term studies comparing the different methods with a large number of patients may provide more information about the most appropriate method to use in eyes with insuffi cient capsular support.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare three different intraocular lens (IOL) implantation methods performed primary or secondary in eyes with defi cient capsular support. Materials and Methods: The records of patients who underwent IOL implantation due to defi cient capsular support were analyzed. The patients were fi rst separated into primary and secondary IOL implantation group (PIG and SIG, respectively), then divided into three subgroups among themselves as iris-claw IOL (IC-IOL), scleral fi xated IOL (SF-IOL), and anterior chamber IOL (AC-IOL). Data were compared according to the groups. Results: The most important cause of IOL implantation was perioperative capsule rupture and insuffi cient capsular support (61.7%, n=29) in PIG, aphakia (55.8%, n=24) in SIG. The most preoperative comorbid condition was iridodonesis (30.4%, n=14) in PIG and IOL subluxation (93.8%, n=15) in SIG. The mean BCVA in the 3rd months was signifi cantly better in the IC-IOL subgroup than AC-IOL subgroups (p=0.001) in PIG. The mean BCVA at the last follow-up was signifi cantly better in the SF-IOL group than the AC-IOL group (p0.05, Chi-square test). Conclusion: All three methods have advantages and disadvantages. The surgeon should consider the patient’s condition when determining the implantation method to be chosen. Future long-term studies comparing the different methods with a large number of patients may provide more information about the most appropriate method to use in eyes with insuffi cient capsular support.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TEKİN, S., ÖZER, M. D., YAŞAR, T., BATUR, M., SEVEN, E., YAVUZER, B. (2022). Comparison of Three Different Intraocular Lens Implantation Method for Eyes with Defi cient Capsular Support. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 2, 74–82. https://ajindex.com/articles/525742

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Zheng D, Wan P, Liang J, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between iris-fi xated anterior chamber intraocular lenses and scleral-fi xated posterior chamber intraocular lenses in Marfan syndrome with lens subluxation. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40:268-74
  2. Kumar M, Arora R, Sanga L, et al. Scleral-fi xated intraocular lens implantation in unilateral aphakic children. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2184-9
  3. Sharpe MR, Biglan AW, Gerontis CC. Scleral fi xation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses in children. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1996;27:337-41
  4. Bayramlar H, Hepsen IF, Çekiç O, et al. Comparison of the results of primary and secondary implantation of fl exible open-loop anterior chamber intraocular lens. Eye. 1998;12:826
  5. Jacobi PC, Dietlein TS, Jacobi FK. Scleral fi xation of secondary foldable multifocal intraocular lens implants in children and young adults. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:2315- 24
  6. Buckley EG. Safety of transscleral-sutured intraocular lenses in children. JAAPOS. 2008;12:431-9
  7. McCluskey P, Harrisberg B. Long-term results using scleralfi xated posterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994;20:34-9
  8. Sekundo W, Bertelmann T, Schulze S. Retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens implantation technique for aphakia. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologe. 2014;111:315-9
  9. Shapiro A, Leen MM. External transscleral posterior chamber lens fi xation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1759-60
  10. Evereklioglu C, Er H, Bekir NA, et al. Comparison of secondary implantation of fl exible open-loop anterior chamber and scleral-fi xated posterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:301-8
  11. Brunin G, Sajjad A, Kim EJ, et al. Secondary intraocular lens implantation: Complication rates, visual acuity, and refractive outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:369-376
  12. Schulze S, Bertelmann T, Sekundo W. Implantation von Intraokularlinsen in den Sulcus ciliaris. Ophthalmologe. 2014;111:305-9
  13. Vounotrypidis E, Schuster I, Mackert MJ, et al. Secondary intraocular lens implantation: a large retrospective analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257:125-34
  14. Stem MS, Todorich B, Woodward MA, et al. Scleral-fi xated intraocular lenses: Past and present. J Vitreoretin Dis. 2017;1:144-52
  15. Drolsum L. Long-term follow-up of secondary fl exible, open-loop, anterior chamber intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:498-503
  16. Menezo J, Martinez M, Cisneros