Ophthalmic research · 2020
Clinical and Surgical Outcome of a Supplementary Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implanted with a Bag-In-the-Lens Intraocular Lens: 5-Year Follow-Up.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Verdonck Thomas, Werner Liliana, Ní Dhubhghaill Sorcha, Tassignon Marie-José
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To assess the postoperative outcome and patient-reported satisfaction, spectacle independence, and dysphotopsia after implantation with the mutifocal Rayner Sulcoflex supplementary intraocular lens (sIOL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the outcome of all patients implanted with a multifocal sIOL between 2009 and 2011. In all cases, the sIOL was the Rayner Sulcoflex IOL (type 653F) and the primary IOL was a bag-in-the-lens (BIL) IOL. The data were obtained through a retrospective analysis of the patient records and by means of a questionnaire, 5 years after sIOL implantation.
RESULTS: This study included 31 eyes of 20 patients. In 13 eyes, the sIOL needed explantation (n = 13, 41.94%). Dysphotopsia is a frequent complaint (12/15 patients: 80.0%) after sIOL implantation. In 13 out of 31 eyes (41.94%), pigment deposits were found on the sIOL with variable clinical complaints. Five eyes required additional surgery because of clinically significant deposits.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Patients with a multifocal sIOL in combination with a BIL implantation have a higher incidence of dysphotopsia compared to previously published studies. Dysphotopsia was the main complaint and reason for explantation. We encountered a high incidence of pigmented IOL deposits. The sIOLs can be safely removed even years after implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the outcome of all patients implanted with a multifocal sIOL between 2009 and 2011. In all cases, the sIOL was the Rayner Sulcoflex IOL (type 653F) and the primary IOL was a bag-in-the-lens (BIL) IOL. The data were obtained through a retrospective analysis of the patient records and by means of a questionnaire, 5 years after sIOL implantation.
RESULTS: This study included 31 eyes of 20 patients. In 13 eyes, the sIOL needed explantation (n = 13, 41.94%). Dysphotopsia is a frequent complaint (12/15 patients: 80.0%) after sIOL implantation. In 13 out of 31 eyes (41.94%), pigment deposits were found on the sIOL with variable clinical complaints. Five eyes required additional surgery because of clinically significant deposits.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Patients with a multifocal sIOL in combination with a BIL implantation have a higher incidence of dysphotopsia compared to previously published studies. Dysphotopsia was the main complaint and reason for explantation. We encountered a high incidence of pigmented IOL deposits. The sIOLs can be safely removed even years after implantation.