American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2026
Acrylic intraocular lenses in patients with patch test-confirmed acrylate allergy: two cases with 1-year follow-up.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Nakata Daisuke, Kamei Motohiro, Ishio Taisei, Futamura Kyoko, Yagami Akiko, Ito Yasuki, Tanikawa Atsuhiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report our experience with two cases of acrylate allergy confirmed by patch testing, wherein acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation was performed and followed up for 1 year.
OBSERVATIONS: A 78-year-old woman with an allergy to acrylic resin consulted a general allergist because of suspected depigmented contact dermatitis. A patch test was positive for methyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), which are acrylic resins. Before cataract surgery, patch tests for the IOL and other acrylic resin materials were performed, all of which tested negative. Case 2: A 49-year-old woman was allergic to several substances, including acrylic resin. A patch test was positive for 2-HEMA and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate. We consulted an anesthesiologist regarding immediate-type allergy and explained to the patient about the possibility of IOL removal for delayed-type allergy. Intra-or postoperative complications were not observed in either patient. Postoperative inflammation was similar to that observed after conventional cataract surgeries. During the 1-year follow-up period, worsening of inflammation in the anterior chamber or other symptoms indicative of delayed hypersensitivity were not observed.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: In two patients with cutaneous acrylate allergy, hydrophobic acrylic IOL implantation was uneventful through the 1-year follow-up period. Careful preoperative patch testing, allergist collaboration, informed consent about uncertain long-term risk, and close follow-up are advised.
OBSERVATIONS: A 78-year-old woman with an allergy to acrylic resin consulted a general allergist because of suspected depigmented contact dermatitis. A patch test was positive for methyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), which are acrylic resins. Before cataract surgery, patch tests for the IOL and other acrylic resin materials were performed, all of which tested negative. Case 2: A 49-year-old woman was allergic to several substances, including acrylic resin. A patch test was positive for 2-HEMA and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate. We consulted an anesthesiologist regarding immediate-type allergy and explained to the patient about the possibility of IOL removal for delayed-type allergy. Intra-or postoperative complications were not observed in either patient. Postoperative inflammation was similar to that observed after conventional cataract surgeries. During the 1-year follow-up period, worsening of inflammation in the anterior chamber or other symptoms indicative of delayed hypersensitivity were not observed.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: In two patients with cutaneous acrylate allergy, hydrophobic acrylic IOL implantation was uneventful through the 1-year follow-up period. Careful preoperative patch testing, allergist collaboration, informed consent about uncertain long-term risk, and close follow-up are advised.