Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lenses (ICIOLs) have been increasingly chosen by surgeons nowadays as a primary or secondary procedure of IOL implantation in eyes with insufficient capsular or zonular support. They have gained popularity due to their simple fast technique, favourable functional outcomes, and safety. The transition in the ICIOL fixation from prepupillary to a more biologically appropriate retropupillary position and change in the optic design from biconvex to convex–concave have provided better visual outcomes and improved safety. A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Library using the keywords “retropupillary iris claw” and “iris claw”. The search yielded 310 articles that were screened. Forty-three articles on retropupillary ICIOLs were finally found to be relevant and reviewed in full-text versions. The functional outcomes following retropupillary implantation of ICIOLs have been acceptable in eyes with no ocular co-morbidities otherwise. However, the indications for surgery may affect the outcomes. The major postoperative complications directly associated with ICIOLs include pupil ovalization and redislocation. Nevertheless, the rate of disenclavation depends on the experience and skill of the surgeon. This review is based on a literature review, and it focuses on the preoperative evaluation, surgical technique, postoperative outcomes, and associated complications. Prospective randomized trials with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed for comparison with other techniques of IOL fixation and confirmation of long-term safety profile.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Razumab (the biosimilar Ranibizumab by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) for the treatment of chorioretinal vascular diseases such as diabetic macular edema (DME), choroidal neovascular membrane (CNVM), and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study, including patients with DME, CNVM, and RVO, who had received treatment with Razumab® between October 2018 and September 2019. Primary outcome measures were the changes in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) from baseline to 1 month and 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP) at day 1, any signs of ocular inflammation or systemic adverse events during the follow-up. Results: One hundred and fifty-three eyes of 141 patients were analyzed. The indications included DME in 70 (45.8%) eyes, CNVM in 70 (45.8%) eyes, and RVO in 13 (8.4%) eyes. Mean CDVA improved from baseline (0.62 ± 0.44) to month 1 (0.45 ± 0.42) and maintained till 3 months (0.42 ± 0.44; P < 0.001). Mean CFT showed significant reduction from baseline (405.68 ± 192.422 μm) to month 1 (286.08 ± 118.36 μm) and month 3 (271 ± 104.24 μm; P < 0.001). None of the eyes recorded IOP >20 mmHg on day 1. No evidence of ocular toxicity or systemic adverse event was noted. Conclusion: Razumab® showed a rapid improvement in CDVA and CFT in most of the eyes with efficacy observed as early as 1 month and maintained till 3 months. The biosimilar Ranibizumab can be a safe and effective low-cost drug for treating macular diseases.

Purpose. To compare visual field results obtained using Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF) iPad-based perimeter software and Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) standard program in glaucoma patients. Design. A cross-sectional observational study. Methods. In this single-centre study involving patients diagnosed with glaucoma, the perimetric outcomes of MRF were compared against those returned from the HFA 24-2 SITA standard. Outcomes included mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), visual field index (VFI)/visual capacity (VC), foveal threshold, test time, number of points depressed at P<5% on PSD probability plot, and glaucoma hemifield test/color coded indicator. Results. The study included 28 eyes of 28 glaucoma patients. Mean (standard deviation) test times were 342.07 (56.70) seconds for MRF and 375.11 (88.95) for HFA 24-2 SITA standard P=0.046. Mean MD was significantly lower for MRF (Δ = 3.09, P<0.001), and mean PSD was significantly higher for MRF (Δ = 1.40, P=0.005) compared with HFA. The mean foveal threshold for the MRF was significantly lower than the mean HFA foveal threshold ((Δ = 9.25, P<0.001). The number of points depressed at P<5% on the PSD probability plot was significantly less for MRF P<0.001. Other perimetric outcomes showed no significant differences between both. Bland–Altman plots showed that considerable variability existed between the programs. Conclusion. MRF is a good cost-effective, time-saving, user-friendly tool for monitoring visual fields in settings where access to traditional perimetry is limited. The lack of Internet strength in rural areas and questionable detection of early cases may be two points in MRF fields requiring an upgrade.

No abstract