Long-Term Outcomes of 4-Point Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene and 2-Point Polypropylene Fixation of Scleral-Sutured Intraocular Lenses.

Purpose: To compare the long-term outcomes of scleral-sutured intraocular lens (IOL) fixation using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene vs polypropylene sutures, with a focus on suture-related complications.

Methods

A retrospective comparative review was conducted of 102 patients who underwent scleral-sutured IOL fixation between 2015 and 2019. Forty-eight eyes of 48 patients received 4-point fixation with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures, and 55 eyes of 54 patients received 2-point fixation with polypropylene sutures. Postoperative complications, visual outcomes, and risk factors for suture-related complications were analyzed over a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

Results

No instances of suture breakage were observed in either group over an average follow-up of 6.7 years. Suture exposure rates were 10.4% (5/48) for expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and 18.2% (10/55) for polypropylene (P = .27). The mean time to suture exposure was 2.7 ± 3.3 years in the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene group and 2.9 ± 2.5 years in the polypropylene group (P = .88). Mean logMAR visual acuity at final follow-up was 1.0 ± 1.2 in the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene group and 1.5 ± 1.2 in the polypropylene group (P = .06). The only significant risk factor for suture exposure was concurrent corneal transplantation or glaucoma surgery (odds ratio [OR], 9.3; P = .003). Surgical correction was required in all cases of exposure with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sutures and in 2 cases with polypropylene sutures. One case of suture-associated infectious scleritis with endophthalmitis occurred in the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene group, and 1 case of endophthalmitis related to an explanted corneal graft occurred in the polypropylene group.

Conclusions

Both expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene sutures demonstrated durable outcomes with similar complication rates. Suture breakage was not observed in either group, and there were no differences in suture exposure rates between the 2 groups. Risk factors for suture exposure included the performance of a concurrent procedure.