Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos.
Journal
Journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 2090-004X
Titre abrégé: J Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101524199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
11
2018
accepted:
15
01
2019
entrez:
22
3
2019
pubmed:
22
3
2019
medline:
22
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the refractive outcome of 2 different methods of intraocular lens implantation in cases of posterior microphthalmos, primary piggyback IOLs versus secondary iris claw lenses. This study was a retrospective interventional comparative study that included 60 eyes of 30 patients. The included patients had bilateral microphthalmos with high axial hyperopia and had undergone a lens-based surgical procedure for hyperopia correction. The included patients were equally divided into two groups. The first group had undergone refractive lens exchange (RLE) with primary piggyback IOL implantation. The second group undergone RLE with maximum available IOL power implanted followed by a secondary implantation of Artisan iris-fixated IOL (Ophtec B.V., Groningen, the Netherlands). The 2 groups were highly comparable to each other regarding the mean age, axial length (AL), manifest refraction (MR), and Secondary procedure with implantation of iris-fixated intraocular lens yielded very good results for treatment of axial hyperopia in cases of posterior microphthalmos. The primary piggyback IOL showed less satisfactory results with cases of under correction and the possible complication of interlenticular opacification. Both groups showed good safety parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30895155
doi: 10.1155/2019/1356982
pmc: PMC6393898
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1356982Références
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Aug;26(8):1233-7
pubmed: 11008054
Ophthalmology. 2002 Mar;109(3):569-74
pubmed: 11874763
J AAPOS. 2005 Oct;9(5):497-8
pubmed: 16213404
Surv Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar-Apr;51(2):153-61
pubmed: 16500215
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Apr;33(4):727-30
pubmed: 17397750
J Refract Surg. 2009 Nov;25(11):975-8
pubmed: 19921764
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;37(1):63-71
pubmed: 21183100
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Sep;37(9):1667-72
pubmed: 21855764
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Mar;38(3):533-8
pubmed: 22340610
Int J Ophthalmol. 2011;4(4):454-7
pubmed: 22553701
Ophthalmology. 2013 Feb;120(2):266-70
pubmed: 23084128
Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Feb;155(2):361-372.e7
pubmed: 23127749
Ophthalmology. 2013 Nov;120(11):e77
pubmed: 24182568
Int J Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct 18;6(5):650-5
pubmed: 24195042
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Jun;159(6):1188
pubmed: 25956463
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar-Apr;26(2):103-6
pubmed: 26350996
Eye (Lond). 2016 Jan;30(1):120-6
pubmed: 26493039
Clin Exp Optom. 2016 Nov;99(6):590-593
pubmed: 27161391
J Refract Surg. 2017 Apr 1;33(4):218-222
pubmed: 28407160
Clin Genet. 2018 Jun;93(6):1210-1222
pubmed: 29450879
Ophthalmology. 2018 Apr;125(4):495
pubmed: 29566867
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993 Nov;19(6):776-7
pubmed: 8271176
Ophthalmology. 1996 Jul;103(7):1118-23
pubmed: 8684803