Literature DB >> 1603529

Ten-year follow up comparing anterior and posterior chamber intraocular lens implants.

J E Downing.   

Abstract

Results achieved in eyes following a single surgeon's first 200 procedures consisting of intracapsular cataract extraction and implantation of a Choyce-Tennant anterior chamber lens (AC-IOL) (1977 to 1980) are compared with those achieved following the same surgeon's first 200 procedures consisting of extracapsular cataract extraction and implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC-IOL) (1980 to 1982). For the AC-IOL eyes, follow up ranged from 11.1 to 14.2 years (mean, 12.0 years); for the PC-IOL eyes, from 9.5 to 10.8 years (mean, 10.0 years). The AC-IOL eyes had many early problems: pupillary block (7%), iritis (15%), and secondary glaucoma (8%). Four percent developed corneal edema, 1.5% vitritis, and 2% localized iris holes under the lens. Ectropion uveae appeared in 8.5%, indicating some ongoing inflammation. One and one-half percent of these lenses were removed or exchanged. Seventy-nine and one-half percent of these eyes had 20/40 or better vision at 10 years; 4% had visual loss along with corneal edema or vitritis, apparently related to the AC-IOLs. The PC-IOL eyes had comparatively few lens-related complications: 1% corneal edema, 1.5% iritis, 1% vitritis, and 2% secondary glaucoma. Some localized trapping of the pupil occurred in 8%. One percent of the PC-IOLs were removed, and 1% decentered, requiring McCannell sutures. Final visual acuity at 10 years was 20/40 or better in 77.5%. None of the PC-IOL eyes had decreased vision related to the lens implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1603529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Surg        ISSN: 0022-023X


  6 in total

1.  Pupillary block due to reverse implantation of a sulcus intraocular lens.

Authors:  Xuemin Zhang; Nishant Soni; Janet Alexander; Sachin Kalarn; Osamah Saeedi
Journal:  JCRS Online Case Rep       Date:  2016-08

2.  Assessment of the safety and efficacy of primary retropupillary fixation of iris-claw intraocular lenses in children with large lens subluxations.

Authors:  Anju Rastogi; Apurva Goray; Prolima Thacker
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 3.  Anterior chamber intraocular lens, sutured posterior chamber intraocular lens, or glued intraocular lens: where do we stand?

Authors:  Derick G Holt; Jason Young; Brian Stagg; Balamurali K Ambati
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.761

4.  Implantation of retropupillar iris claw lenses with and without combined penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  Florian Rüfer; Mark Saeger; Bernhard Nölle; Johann Roider
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Comparison of Different IOL Types in the Flanged IOL Fixation Technique.

Authors:  Yusaku Miura; Yosuke Harada; Yoshiaki Kiuchi
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients.

Authors:  C V Sumitha; Vijay Pai; Mithun Thulasidas
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.848

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.