| Literature DB >> 31384481 |
Bruna Ferraço Marianelli1,2, Thaís Sousa Mendes1, Roberta Pereira de Almeida Manzano1, Patrícia Novita Garcia1, Ivan Corso Teixeira1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The position of the intraocular lens (IOL) is a major factor that affects the final visual acuity after cataract surgery. However, no prospective study has compared the IOL positions associated with the sutureless intrascleral technique and the standard transscleral suturing technique. The current study compared the IOL positions in the two techniques using ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: Cataract; Intraocular lens implantation; Intraocular lens scleral fixation; Lens subluxation; Ultrasound biomicroscopy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31384481 PMCID: PMC6664768 DOI: 10.1186/s40942-019-0182-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Retina Vitreous ISSN: 2056-9920
Fig. 1An ultrasound biomicroscopy image shows an axial vertical image of an eye that underwent the sutureless intrascleral fixation technique and the method used to measure the vertical tilt
Fig. 2An ultrasound biomicroscopy image shows an axial horizontal image of an eye that underwent the sutured transscleral fixation technique showing the method used to measure the horizontal tilt
Indications for scleral fixation surgery
| Surgery indication | Sutureless intrascleral fixation (n = 11) | Transscleral suture fixation (n = 10) |
|---|---|---|
| Phacoemulsification complications | 9 (81.81%) | 6 (60%) |
| Lens subluxation | 2 (18.18%) | 1 (10%) |
| Ocular trauma | – | 3 (30%) |
Vertical inclination
| Technique | Sutured | Sutureless |
|---|---|---|
| Number (total) | 10 | 11 |
| Mean ± standard deviation | 0.14 ± 0.17 | 0.24 ± 0.21 |
| p value | 0.148 |
Vertical inclination mean ± standard deviation, standard error, 95% confidence intervals and p value for each technique
Horizontal inclination
| Technique | Sutured | Sutureless |
|---|---|---|
| Number (total) | 10 | 11 |
| Mean ± standard deviation | 0.23 ± 0.16 | 0.25 ± 0.19 |
| p value | 0.888 |
Horizontal inclination mean ± standard deviation, standard error, 95% confidence interval and p value for each technique
Multiple linear regression
| Vertical tilt coefficient (95% confidence interval) | p | Horizontal tilt coefficient (95% confidence interval) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technique | ||||
| Sutured | Reference | – | Reference | – |
| Sutureless | 0.082 (− 0.112 to 0.277) | 0.379 | 0.055 (− 0.126 to 0.236) | 0.527 |
| Gender | ||||
| Female | Reference | – | Reference | – |
| Male | − 0.105 (− 0.291 to 0.082) | 0.248 | − 0.157 (− 0.331 to 0.016) | 0.072 |
| Age | − 0.005 (− 0.011 to 0.001) | 0.082 | − 0.001 (− 0.006 to 0.005) | 0.822 |
| Surgical duration | − 0.001 (− 0.003 to 0.002) | 0.580 | 0.001 (− 0.001 to 0.003) | 0.163 |
| Follow-up time | − 0.008 (− 0.038 to 0.021) | 0.546 | 0.005 (− 0.022 to 0.032) | 0.704 |
Visual acuity results and postoperative refraction
| Technique | Sutured | Sutureless | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± standard deviation (median) | Mean ± standard deviation (median) | ||
| Postoperative spheric error | − 0.21 ± 1.79 (− 0.50) | 0.32 ± 2.15 (0.00) | 0.525 |
| Postoperative cylindrical error | − 3.36 ± 1.86 (− 2.50) | − 2.14 ± 1.03 (− 2.00) | 0.179 |
| Postoperative spheric equivalent | − 1.89 ± 1.64 (− 2.00) | − 0.75 ± 1.97 (− 0.25) | 0.160 |
| Postoperative best corrected visual acuity (logMAR) | 0.55 ± 0.32 (0.48) | 0.45 ± 0.39 (0.30) | 0.439 |