Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus · 1999
Infantile lensectomy and intraocular lens implantation with long-term follow-up in a monkey model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание 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.
Lambert S R, Aiyer A, Grossniklaus H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report the long-term clinical and histopathologic findings in infant monkeys following a lensectomy and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using two different surgical techniques.
METHODS: A lensectomy and IOL implantation was performed on the right eye of 10 infant monkeys. A posterior capsulotomy was performed using a limbal approach in 5 monkeys (Group 1), and a pars plana approach in 5 other monkeys (Group 2). The residual refractive error in the pseudophakic eye was then corrected with a contact lens and the fellow eye was occluded for 70% of the daylight hours. The monkeys were then examined at regular intervals for 2 to 4 years. Visual acuity was assessed using operant testing and sweep visual evoked potentials (VEPs). At the end of the study, the pseudophakic eyes were studied histopathologically.
RESULTS: The only complications that required reoperation were diaphanous fibrin membranes on the lens optic (n=10) and lens reproliferation into the pupillary space (n=5). The visual outcome was similar in Groups 1 and 2, with better acuities in the phakic eyes compared with the pseudophakic eyes. A higher percentage of both haptics were found in the capsular bag for the monkeys in Group 2 (n=3) than in Group 1 (n=1).
CONCLUSIONS: Although haptic placement was superior using a pars plana approach to perform the primary posterior capsulotomy, no clinically discernable difference was noted in IOL centration between the monkeys undergoing a limbal versus a pars plana posterior capsulotomy and no difference was noted in the visual outcome.
METHODS: A lensectomy and IOL implantation was performed on the right eye of 10 infant monkeys. A posterior capsulotomy was performed using a limbal approach in 5 monkeys (Group 1), and a pars plana approach in 5 other monkeys (Group 2). The residual refractive error in the pseudophakic eye was then corrected with a contact lens and the fellow eye was occluded for 70% of the daylight hours. The monkeys were then examined at regular intervals for 2 to 4 years. Visual acuity was assessed using operant testing and sweep visual evoked potentials (VEPs). At the end of the study, the pseudophakic eyes were studied histopathologically.
RESULTS: The only complications that required reoperation were diaphanous fibrin membranes on the lens optic (n=10) and lens reproliferation into the pupillary space (n=5). The visual outcome was similar in Groups 1 and 2, with better acuities in the phakic eyes compared with the pseudophakic eyes. A higher percentage of both haptics were found in the capsular bag for the monkeys in Group 2 (n=3) than in Group 1 (n=1).
CONCLUSIONS: Although haptic placement was superior using a pars plana approach to perform the primary posterior capsulotomy, no clinically discernable difference was noted in IOL centration between the monkeys undergoing a limbal versus a pars plana posterior capsulotomy and no difference was noted in the visual outcome.