| Literature DB >> 31576104 |
Praveen Subudhi1,2, Sweta Patro1, Zahiruddin Khan2, B Nageswar Rao Subudhi3, Silla Sitaram4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of implanting implantable phakic copolymer lenses (IPCLs) with peripheral optic holes in the intraocular posterior chamber in Indian patients with moderate to high myopia.Entities:
Keywords: IPCL; pathological myopia; peripheral optical hole
Year: 2019 PMID: 31576104 PMCID: PMC6765325 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S215821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Implantable phakic copolymer lens over the butterfly cartridge.
Figure 2(A, B, and C) Postoperative lens position on pupillary dilatation in slit lamp.
Satisfaction scores
| Grades of satisfaction | Score | Number of patients (50); |
|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfied | 1 | 0 |
| Acceptable | 2 | 2 (4%) |
| Satisfied | 3 | 5 (10%) |
| Very satisfied | 4 | 20 (40%) |
| Extremely satisfied | 5 | 23 (46%) |
Patient demographics and visual acuity (N-75)
| Mean with SD | 25.36±3.60 | |
| Median | 25 | |
| Range | 18, 34 | |
| 18–22.9 | 10 (20%) | |
| 23–27.9 | 25 (50%) | |
| 28–32.9 | 12 (24%) | |
| 33–38 | 3 (6%) | |
| Mean with SD | 3.521±0.82 | |
| Median | 3.545 | |
| Range | 2.89, 4.14 | |
| Mean with SD | 11.70±0.42 | |
| Median | 11.68 | |
| Range | 10.7, 12.6 | |
| Mean with SD | 14.3±2.7 | |
| Median | 15.2 | |
| Range | 10, 22 | |
| Mean with SD | 0.38±0.26 | |
| Median | 0.4 | |
| Range (Min, Max) | 0, 1.2 | |
| Mean with SD | 0.24±0.16 | |
| Median | 0.2 | |
| Range (Min, Max) | 0, 0.7 | |
| Mean with SD | 1.8±0.5 | |
| Median | 1.8 | |
| Range | 0.5, 2.8 | |
| Mean with SD | 0.65±0.28 | |
| Median | 0.67 | |
| Range (Min, Max) | 0, 1.5 |
Figure 3(A) Comparative analysis between preoperative best-corrected visual acuity and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity. (B) Postoperative residual refractive power in diopters. (C) Visual Gain in postoperative period compared to preoperative best-corrected visual acuity. (D) Scatter plot of vault height assessed by anterior segment OCT (Zeiss Inc., Jena).
Figure 4Satisfaction scores of the patients.
Complications
| Complications | Number of eyes (Percentage) |
|---|---|
| 1. Iris adhesions | 0 |
| 2. Corneal edema | 5 (6.66%) |
| 3. Pupillary distortion | 1 (1.3%) |
| 4. Intraocular lens dislocation | 0 |
| 5. Halo vision | 2 (2.66%) |
| 6. Angle closure glaucoma | 1 (1.3%) |
| 7. Cataract | 1 (1.3%) |
| 8. Corneal pigmentation | 3 (4%) |
| 9. Iris atrophy | 1 (1.3%) |