Effect of sutureless scleral fixed intraocular lens implantation on aphakic eyes: a system review and meta-analysis.
Aphakia
Efficacy
Meta
SF-IOL
Sutureless
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Dec 2023
06 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
09
03
2023
accepted:
14
11
2023
medline:
7
12
2023
pubmed:
6
12
2023
entrez:
5
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sutureless scleral fixed intraocular lens implantation (SF-IOL) has become one of the mainstream schemes in clinical treatment of aphakic eyes because of its advantages, such as avoiding dislocation of intraocular lens or subluxation caused by suture degradation or fracture and significant improvement of postoperative visual acuity. However, a consensus on the relative effectiveness and safety of this operation and other methods is still lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sutureless SF-IOL with other methods. Aphakia means that the lens leaves the normal position and loses its original function, including absence or complete dislocation and subluxation of the lens which could cause anisometropic amblyopia, strabismus, and loss of binocular function in children and adolescents. For adults, the loss of the lens could lead to high hyperopia and affect vision. Above all this disease can seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Literature about sutureless SF-IOL in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Technical Journal VIP database, and Wanfang database published from 2000 to 2022 was reviewed. The weighted average difference was calculated by RevMan5.3 software for analysis. Two researchers independently selected the study and used the Cochrane collaboration tool to assess the risk of errors. Cochrane bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022363282). The postoperative IOL-related astigmatism of sutureless SF-IOL was lower than that of suture SF-IOL, and there was statistical difference when we compared the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent after sutureless SF-IOL and suture SF-IOL. Indicating that the degree of refractive error after sutureless SF-IOL was lower. Meanwhile, the operation time of sutureless SF-IOL was shorter than that of suture SF-IOL. The subgroup analysis showed that the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent and astigmatism values in Yamane technique were lower than those in suture SF-IOL. Sutureless SF-IOL has the advantages of stable refraction, short operation time, and less postoperative complications. However, high-quality literature to compare these technologies is lacking. Some long-term follow-up longitudinal prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sutureless scleral fixed intraocular lens implantation (SF-IOL) has become one of the mainstream schemes in clinical treatment of aphakic eyes because of its advantages, such as avoiding dislocation of intraocular lens or subluxation caused by suture degradation or fracture and significant improvement of postoperative visual acuity. However, a consensus on the relative effectiveness and safety of this operation and other methods is still lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sutureless SF-IOL with other methods. Aphakia means that the lens leaves the normal position and loses its original function, including absence or complete dislocation and subluxation of the lens which could cause anisometropic amblyopia, strabismus, and loss of binocular function in children and adolescents. For adults, the loss of the lens could lead to high hyperopia and affect vision. Above all this disease can seriously affect the quality of life of patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Literature about sutureless SF-IOL in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Technical Journal VIP database, and Wanfang database published from 2000 to 2022 was reviewed. The weighted average difference was calculated by RevMan5.3 software for analysis. Two researchers independently selected the study and used the Cochrane collaboration tool to assess the risk of errors. Cochrane bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022363282).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The postoperative IOL-related astigmatism of sutureless SF-IOL was lower than that of suture SF-IOL, and there was statistical difference when we compared the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent after sutureless SF-IOL and suture SF-IOL. Indicating that the degree of refractive error after sutureless SF-IOL was lower. Meanwhile, the operation time of sutureless SF-IOL was shorter than that of suture SF-IOL. The subgroup analysis showed that the absolute postoperative spherical equivalent and astigmatism values in Yamane technique were lower than those in suture SF-IOL.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Sutureless SF-IOL has the advantages of stable refraction, short operation time, and less postoperative complications. However, high-quality literature to compare these technologies is lacking. Some long-term follow-up longitudinal prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38053049
doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-03223-6
pii: 10.1186/s12886-023-03223-6
pmc: PMC10698919
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
493Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Dec;40(12):2099-105
pubmed: 25457381
Ophthalmology. 2017 Aug;124(8):1136-1142
pubmed: 28457613
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Jan;42(1):27-34
pubmed: 26948775
Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan;141(1):71-78
pubmed: 16386979
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Sep;41(9):1839-44
pubmed: 26603392
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998 Jul;24(7):945-50
pubmed: 9682115
BMC Ophthalmol. 2022 Feb 5;22(1):57
pubmed: 35123431
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2021 Aug;238(8):868-874
pubmed: 33853190
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):80-5
pubmed: 17070590
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Oct;138(4):536-42
pubmed: 15488777
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2021 Oct;44(8):1174-1179
pubmed: 34226085
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2018 May;62(3):365-372
pubmed: 29464488
Retina. 2021 Apr 1;41(4):761-767
pubmed: 32826788
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2022 Jan;45(1):13-19
pubmed: 34949500
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep;160(3):463-469.e1
pubmed: 26116261
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Sep;34(9):1433-8
pubmed: 18721701
Int Ophthalmol. 2019 Apr;39(4):839-845
pubmed: 29502212
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;144(2):186-194
pubmed: 17559787
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016 May-Jun;79(3):159-62
pubmed: 27463626
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jan;32(1):242-248
pubmed: 33550842
Ophthalmologica. 2021;244(1):68-75
pubmed: 32252056
BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 Aug 14;15:104
pubmed: 26272766
Int J Retina Vitreous. 2019 Jul 29;5:33
pubmed: 31384481
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):61-66
pubmed: 24148655
Acta Ophthalmol. 2019 Sep;97(6):583-588
pubmed: 30734518
BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 May 04;16(1):50
pubmed: 27145831
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Nov;33(11):1851-4
pubmed: 17964387
Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Feb;141(2):308-312
pubmed: 16458685
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997 Nov;23(9):1289-94
pubmed: 9423897
Retina. 2013 Mar;33(3):657-60
pubmed: 23296051
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Aug;122(8):1112-6
pubmed: 15302649
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018 Oct;44(10):1186-1191
pubmed: 30122352