Scleral Fixation Iol: Outcome and Complications

M, Lokabhi Reddy J

doi:10.14260/jemds/2016/230

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our series, BCVA of 5/10 or better was noted in 22 cases (38.59%). This is lower than reported by other authors [4,10,11], but the difference is that we did not exclude from our study the patients with associated lesions: RD, IOFB, and ruptured globe. In these circumstances, the final functional prognosis is influenced not only by IOL implantation technique but mainly by the consequences of other major ocular injuries.…”

Section: Visual Acuitycontrasting

confidence: 60%

“…The medium age of our patients (64.22 years) is higher as reported in the literature [4]. This might be partially explained by the high number of cases with previous complicated cataract surgeries (42.10%), since we are a referral center in the area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Recovery of the visual function in an aphakic patient is challenging. Aphakic glasses are not an option, because of their high magnification and subsequent aniseikonia [4]. Contact lenses are difficult to handle, especially in older patients Table 4.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A bigger knot is associated with a higher risk of sclera atrophy, Scleral-Fixated Intraocular Lens: Indications and Results DOI: http://dx.doi.org /10.5772/intechopen.89962 erosion, and resultant endophthalmitis [9]. This drawback is overcome by creating the sclera flaps covering the knots or by using an intrascleral Z suture instead of the knot [4].…”

Section: Comments Related To the Iolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scleral-Fixated Intraocular Lens: Indications and Results

Nicoară¹

2020

Intraocular Lens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, ideal cataract surgery should end with the placement of an intraocular lens (IOLs) in the bag. However, in the clinical setting we have to manage cases without enough capsular support to allow the physiological IOL placement. Progress has been made in terms of IOL designs and implantation techniques. The options should be analyzed not only in accordance with surgeon's experience but also with patient's age, local, and systemic comorbidities. Thus, in the absence of an appropriate capsule, IOL can be placed in the anterior chamber, fixated to the iris or to the sclera wall. In this paper, the personal experience of one surgeon with ab externo scleral-fixated IOLs is presented, with the aim to outline the place of this surgical technique in the correction of aphakia. A retrospective study was carried out, including 57 patients in which an IOL was fixated to the sclera, throughout January 2015-April 2019. The causes of aphakia, preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuities (BCVA), and intraand postoperative complications are analyzed. Statistical tests were applied in order to draw significance. In most instances, BCVA has remained stable, with no significant complications, making sclera fixation IOL a viable solution in the correction of aphakia.

show abstract

Section: Visual Acuitycontrasting

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comments Related To the Iolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scleral-Fixated Intraocular Lens: Indications and Results

Nicoară¹

2020

Intraocular Lens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23,24 For the SFIOL group, the percentage of eyes that had final BCVA of 6/12 or better was within the range for the outcomes of other studies, between 43% and 80.9%. [25][26][27][28] Lee et al conducted a retrospective study that demonstrated that more eyes achieved BCVA of 6/12 or better in secondary implantation compared to primary implantation of SCIOL (58.6% vs 76.0%), but the result was statistically insignificant. 28 The overall complication rate in our study was 21.9%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iris-claw intraocular lens, scleral-fixated intraocular lens, and angle-supported anterior chamber intraocular lens in Hospital Melaka: a four-year retrospective analysis

Chan¹,

Chua²,

Khair³

et al. 2020

MyJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Cataract surgery with insufficient capsular support has become an intense challenge to surgeons in intraocular lens (IOL) selection. Anterior chamber IOL (ACIOL), iris-claw (Artisan) IOL, and scleral-fixated IOL (SFIOL) are the three common types of IOL used. However, each type of IOL has its own characteristics and different clinical requirements. IOL selection is important in ensuring good visual outcome. Purpose: The purpose is to compare the duration or surgery, visual outcomes, and complications among ACIOL, Artisan IOL, and SFIOL. Study design: Retrospective comparative analysis. Material and methods: This is a four-year retrospective analysis of patients who underwent either ACIOL, Artisan IOL, or SFIOL implantation between January 2014 and January 2018. Patients were divided into ACIOL, Artisan, and SFIOL groups. Demographic data, duration of surgery, preoperative and postoperative visual acuity, and postoperative complications were identified and compared among the different groups. Results: Sixty-four eyes from 58 patients were analysed: twenty (31.3%) eyes with ACIOL, 28 (43.8%) eyes with Artisan, and 16 (25%) eyes with SFIOL. Mean surgery times for ACIOL, Artisan, and SFIOL were: 61 ± 27.8, 64 ± 26.9, and 104.1 ± 46.8, respectively. SFIOL showed significantly longer surgery time than the ACIOL and Artisan groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in surgery time between the ACIOL and Artisan groups (p > 0.05). The Artisan group showed significantly better visual recovery at postoperative 1 week than both the ACIOL and SFIOL groups (Artisan vs ACIOL: 6/18 vs 6/24, p < 0.05; Artisan vs SFIOL: 6/18 vs 6/60, p < 0.05). However, final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at two months was comparable among all three groups with a median BCVA of 6/9. Elevated intraocular pressure occurred in all IOL groups, retinal detachment developedin the Artisan and SFIOL groups, epiretinal membrane developed in the ACIOL and SFIOL groups, corneal decompensation developed in the ACIOL group only. Cystoid macular oedema and IOL tilt occurred in SFIOL only. Conclusions: All three groups of IOL showed comparable good visual outcomes. The decision of IOL selection should be based on patients’ clinical condition and availability of surgical skill and resources.

show abstract