A Comparative Analysis of Carlevale IOL Versus Artisan IOL Implantation Using a Scleral Tunnel Incision Technique.

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the surgical and refractive outcomes using the Carlevale IOL (FIL SSF; SOLEKO) with those of the retropupillary-fixated Artisan IOL (Aphakia Model 205; OPHTEC), implanted through a 6 mm sclerocorneal tunnel incision in both groups.

Methods

This study included 51 consecutive eyes (25 Carlevale and 26 Artisan IOLs). Due to complex preoperative conditions (e.g., dislocated polymethylmethacrylat IOL, luxated Cataracta rubra), all patients underwent lens explantation using a standardized 6 mm sclerocorneal tunnel incision and a 23 G or 25 G pars plana vitrectomy. Visual acuity (VA), spherical equivalent, refractive prediction error (PE), incision-suture time, and complication rates were recorded preoperatively and during the follow-up period.

Results

The average follow-up period was 40.9 ± 5.7 days. VA improved by 0.28 ± 0.39 logMAR (p < 0.0001) in the Carlevale group and by 0.36 ± 0.47 logMAR (p < 0.0001) in the Artisan group. The improvement was comparable between both groups (p = 0.921). The deviation of the PE was -0.67 ± 0.56 in the Carlevale group and 0.34 ± 0.71 in the Artisan group (p < 0.0001). The mean incision-suture time was 42.5 ± 5.8 min in the Carlevale group and 28.2 ± 6.4 min in the Artisan group. Anterior chamber and vitreous hemorrhages were the most common complications, occurring in 12% in the Carlevale group and 17.2% in the Artisan group.

Conclusions

The use of the Carlevale IOL, implanted using a sclerocorneal tunnel technique, presents a valid option for treating complex lens dislocations. The scleral fixation of the Carlevale IOL minimizes risks associated with iris fixation, such as chronic inflammation and pupil distortion, making it particularly suitable for patients with damaged irises.