European journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Postoperative results after iris reconstruction with an Artificialiris® implant with consideration of the cause of the iris defects.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Riedl Jana C, Pfeffer Nora, Giers Bert C, Schuster Alexander K, Vossmerbaeumer Urs
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that severely damaged eyes are more likely to experience postoperative complications after an ArtificialIris® (AI) implantation than other iris defects.
METHODS: Patients after iris reconstruction with an AI were included in this consecutive case series of the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Mainz, Germany. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), objective refraction (KR 8900 Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) and Scheimpflug imaging of the anterior segment with Pentacam® (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany)and postoperative complications were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients after AI implantation were included, separated in partial or total aniridia in a closed globe (group 1, n = 16) and after perforating globe injury (group 2, n = 16). Two or more previous surgeries in the corresponding eye were found in two patients (12.5%) in group 1 and eleven patients (69%) in group 2 (p = 0.001). The time span between initial trauma or iris defect and AI implantation was not significantly related to the occurrence and severity of postoperative complications (p = 0.89). Postoperative complications were classified into mild and severe and showed no differences between group 1 and group 2 (mild: 1 vs. 0; p = 0.52; severe: 5 vs. 6 p = 0.8).
CONCLUSION: AI implantation is a treatment option for various iris defects. An individual, case-based decision should be made with strict indication also considering other possible methods for pupil reconstruction. The postoperative outcome is not affected by the time point of AI implantation. So, an implantation is already possible as early as six weeks after the previous trauma.
METHODS: Patients after iris reconstruction with an AI were included in this consecutive case series of the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Mainz, Germany. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), objective refraction (KR 8900 Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) and Scheimpflug imaging of the anterior segment with Pentacam® (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany)and postoperative complications were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients after AI implantation were included, separated in partial or total aniridia in a closed globe (group 1, n = 16) and after perforating globe injury (group 2, n = 16). Two or more previous surgeries in the corresponding eye were found in two patients (12.5%) in group 1 and eleven patients (69%) in group 2 (p = 0.001). The time span between initial trauma or iris defect and AI implantation was not significantly related to the occurrence and severity of postoperative complications (p = 0.89). Postoperative complications were classified into mild and severe and showed no differences between group 1 and group 2 (mild: 1 vs. 0; p = 0.52; severe: 5 vs. 6 p = 0.8).
CONCLUSION: AI implantation is a treatment option for various iris defects. An individual, case-based decision should be made with strict indication also considering other possible methods for pupil reconstruction. The postoperative outcome is not affected by the time point of AI implantation. So, an implantation is already possible as early as six weeks after the previous trauma.