Retropupillary fixated iris-claw lens: An effective alternative for aphakia

Intraocular lens implantation in the absence of capsular support: scleral-fixated vs retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lenses

“…12,18,19,25,27,39,44,45,47–49,63,64,77,79,80 In RP-IC IOLs studies, it has been found to be 0.70% to 7.7% after mean follow-up ranging between 1 month and 8 years. 8,33,47,48,52,54,59–62,67,74,85,87 Although 2 comparative studies of SF IOL and RP-IC IOLs implantations have reported a slightly higher incidence of retinal detachment in the RP-IC IOLs group (0% vs 1.11% in Kelkar et al and 2% vs 4% in Madhivanan et al), the difference was not statistically significant. Of note, in a study by Madhivanan et al, eyes with RP-IC IOL had significantly more retinal pathology and corneal edema at the time of IOL placement compared with SF IOL-implanted eyes.…”

“…Several studies with different study designs, settings, patient cohorts, IOL fixation techniques, and follow-up periods have reported 0% to 50% of patients with increased IOP after SF IOL implantation; the corresponding range for patients implanted with RP-IC IOLs is 1% to 36.36%. 8,11–13,16–20,22–25,27–33,37–62 In 3 comparative studies, raised IOP following RP-IC IOL has been reported to be either lower or similar to SF IOL. Hazar et al found a higher percentage of patients with elevated IOP in the SF IOL group (29% vs 8.3% of the RP-IC IOL group) at postoperative 1 week.…”

“…12,18,19,25,27,39,44,45,[47][48][49]63,64,77,79,80 In RP-IC IOLs studies, it has been found to be 0.70% to 7.7% after mean follow-up ranging between 1 month and 8 years. 8,33,47,48,52,54,[59][60][61][62]67,74,85,87 Although 2 comparative studies of SF IOL and RP-IC IOLs implantations have reported a slightly higher incidence of retinal detachment in the RP-IC IOLs group (0% vs 1.11% in Kelkar et…”

“…Chronic uveitis due to persistent vitreous traction or chafing against uveal tissues may also lead to secondary glaucoma. 103 Hazar et al [11][12][13][16][17][18][19][20][22][23][24][25][27][28][29][30][31][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] 1%, 36.36% 8,23,32,33,37,41,47,48,[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] Glaucoma 0%, 17% 11,…”

“…Mean CDVA (Snellen equivalent) 20/22, 20/88 11,12,14,17,24,27,28,30,31,42,44,49,51,78,80,88 (1 d -83 mo) 20/23.5, 20/87*, 8,32,52,54,55,61,71,72,74,81,85,92,93 (1 mo -8 y) CDVA of 20/40 or better 29%, 91% 13,[18][19][20]38,44,[48][49][50]63,64,70,78,80,94 70%, 90% 48,53,56,58,61,87,95 Mean UDVA (Snellen equivalent) 20/65, 20/100 24,…”