Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos

Purpose. To compare the refractive outcome of 2 different methods of intraocular lens implantation in cases of posterior microphthalmos, primary piggyback IOLs versus secondary iris claw lenses. Methods. This study was a retrospective interventional comparative study that included 60 eyes of 30 pati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Abdelhamid Elhofi, Hany Ahmed Helaly, Amr Said
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-01-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1356982
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850175520651608064
author Abdelhamid Elhofi
Hany Ahmed Helaly
Amr Said
author_facet Abdelhamid Elhofi
Hany Ahmed Helaly
Amr Said
author_sort Abdelhamid Elhofi
collection DOAJ
description Purpose. To compare the refractive outcome of 2 different methods of intraocular lens implantation in cases of posterior microphthalmos, primary piggyback IOLs versus secondary iris claw lenses. Methods. This study was a retrospective interventional comparative study that included 60 eyes of 30 patients. The included patients had bilateral microphthalmos with high axial hyperopia and had undergone a lens-based surgical procedure for hyperopia correction. The included patients were equally divided into two groups. The first group had undergone refractive lens exchange (RLE) with primary piggyback IOL implantation. The second group undergone RLE with maximum available IOL power implanted followed by a secondary implantation of Artisan iris-fixated IOL (Ophtec B.V., Groningen, the Netherlands). Results. The 2 groups were highly comparable to each other regarding the mean age, axial length (AL), manifest refraction (MR), and K readings. Postoperatively, there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the CDVA. At 36 months, 20% and 73% of the eyes were within ±0.5 D of intended refraction at 36 months in 1ry piggyback and 2ry Artisan groups, respectively. Fifty-three percent and 93% of the eyes were within ±1.0 D of intended refraction at 36 months in 1ry piggyback and 2ry Artisan groups, respectively (p=0.001). Conclusion. Secondary procedure with implantation of iris-fixated intraocular lens yielded very good results for treatment of axial hyperopia in cases of posterior microphthalmos. The primary piggyback IOL showed less satisfactory results with cases of under correction and the possible complication of interlenticular opacification. Both groups showed good safety parameters.
format Article
id doaj-art-bfcbdaedbabc4d2db6608dccddb57d77
institution OA Journals
issn 2090-004X
2090-0058
language English
publishDate 2019-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Ophthalmology
spelling doaj-art-bfcbdaedbabc4d2db6608dccddb57d772025-08-20T02:19:26ZengWileyJournal of Ophthalmology2090-004X2090-00582019-01-01201910.1155/2019/13569821356982Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior MicrophthalmosAbdelhamid Elhofi0Hany Ahmed Helaly1Amr Said2Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EgyptOphthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EgyptOphthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, EgyptPurpose. To compare the refractive outcome of 2 different methods of intraocular lens implantation in cases of posterior microphthalmos, primary piggyback IOLs versus secondary iris claw lenses. Methods. This study was a retrospective interventional comparative study that included 60 eyes of 30 patients. The included patients had bilateral microphthalmos with high axial hyperopia and had undergone a lens-based surgical procedure for hyperopia correction. The included patients were equally divided into two groups. The first group had undergone refractive lens exchange (RLE) with primary piggyback IOL implantation. The second group undergone RLE with maximum available IOL power implanted followed by a secondary implantation of Artisan iris-fixated IOL (Ophtec B.V., Groningen, the Netherlands). Results. The 2 groups were highly comparable to each other regarding the mean age, axial length (AL), manifest refraction (MR), and K readings. Postoperatively, there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the CDVA. At 36 months, 20% and 73% of the eyes were within ±0.5 D of intended refraction at 36 months in 1ry piggyback and 2ry Artisan groups, respectively. Fifty-three percent and 93% of the eyes were within ±1.0 D of intended refraction at 36 months in 1ry piggyback and 2ry Artisan groups, respectively (p=0.001). Conclusion. Secondary procedure with implantation of iris-fixated intraocular lens yielded very good results for treatment of axial hyperopia in cases of posterior microphthalmos. The primary piggyback IOL showed less satisfactory results with cases of under correction and the possible complication of interlenticular opacification. Both groups showed good safety parameters.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1356982
spellingShingle Abdelhamid Elhofi
Hany Ahmed Helaly
Amr Said
Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
Journal of Ophthalmology
title Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
title_full Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
title_fullStr Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
title_short Comparison between Refractive Outcome of Primary Piggyback Intraocular Lens versus Secondary Lens Iris Claw Lens in Posterior Microphthalmos
title_sort comparison between refractive outcome of primary piggyback intraocular lens versus secondary lens iris claw lens in posterior microphthalmos
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1356982
work_keys_str_mv AT abdelhamidelhofi comparisonbetweenrefractiveoutcomeofprimarypiggybackintraocularlensversussecondarylensirisclawlensinposteriormicrophthalmos
AT hanyahmedhelaly comparisonbetweenrefractiveoutcomeofprimarypiggybackintraocularlensversussecondarylensirisclawlensinposteriormicrophthalmos
AT amrsaid comparisonbetweenrefractiveoutcomeofprimarypiggybackintraocularlensversussecondarylensirisclawlensinposteriormicrophthalmos