Morphological variations influencing the outcomes in posterior polar cataract.
Complications
Daljit Singh grading
morphological classification
phacoemulsification
posterior polar cataract
Journal
Indian journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 1998-3689
Titre abrégé: Indian J Ophthalmol
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0405376
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
entrez:
6
7
2022
pubmed:
7
7
2022
medline:
8
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To study the intraoperative complications and postoperative clinical outcomes in different types of posterior polar cataract (PPC) following phacoemulsification, based on morphological classification. All consecutive patients with PPC who underwent phacoemulsification during the study period from 2016 to 2019 were included and sub-grouped based on the morphological characteristics according to Daljit Singh's classification. Intraoperative complications such as posterior capsular rupture (PCR), vitreous loss, nucleus drop, and Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at day 1 and day 30 were documented. A total of 388 eyes of 380 patients were included. Eighty nine (22.9%) eyes belonged to type 1, 135 (34.8%) belonged to type 2, 8 (2.1%) belonged to type 3, and 156 (40.2%) belonged to type 4. Thirty-five (9.3%) eyes had intraoperative PCR, with vitreous loss in 21 (60%) eyes, and nucleus/cortex drop in 5 (1.3%) eyes. Six (75%) eyes of type 3, 14 (10.04%) eyes of type 2, 12 (17.7%) eyes of type 4, and 3 (3.4%) eyes of type 1 PPC had PCR. PCR occurred more during the emulsification of the nucleus (18 cases, 51.4%). A significant correlation was seen between intraoperative PCR and type of PPC with a higher incidence in type 3 (P < 0.001). BCVA was found to be significantly worse on day 1 among patients with PCR compared to those who did not and improved well by day 30. PPC morphology is significantly co-related with the occurrence of PCR, emphasizing the need for careful grading of posterior polar cataracts in predicting the risk of intraoperative complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35791124
pii: IndianJOphthalmol_2022_70_7_2426_349109
doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2764_21
pmc: PMC9426121
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2426-2431Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Aug;33(8):1471-3
pubmed: 17662445
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Oct;35(10):1719-24
pubmed: 19781466
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020 Apr;68(4):589-594
pubmed: 32174575
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021 Mar;69(3):594-597
pubmed: 33595482
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Jan;29(1):16-9
pubmed: 12551661
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Apr;41(4):702-7
pubmed: 25840293
Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:215-7
pubmed: 24453477
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Feb;38(2):234-41
pubmed: 22153315
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009 Nov-Dec;19(6):984-9
pubmed: 19882578
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Dec;40(12):2076-81
pubmed: 25465687
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Feb;25(2):238-45
pubmed: 9951671
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990 Mar;16(2):157-62
pubmed: 2329471
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Jan;29(1):45-9
pubmed: 12551666
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 May;28(5):742-4
pubmed: 11978449
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997 Jul-Aug;23(6):819-24
pubmed: 9292661
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Sep;46(9):1260-1265
pubmed: 32618831
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Nov;87(11):1426-7
pubmed: 14609852
Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov;92(11):1476-8
pubmed: 18728051
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec;38(9):857-61
pubmed: 20572822
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 Jun;32(6):914-7
pubmed: 16814047
Eye (Lond). 2012 Jun;26(6):761-70
pubmed: 22441026