Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
Refractive outcomes for secondary sutureless posterior chamber lens implantation: sutureless scleral fixating lens Carlevale® versus retropupillary iris-claw lens Artisan®.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bontemps Justine, Loria Olivier, Sejournet Lucas, Allignet Benoit, Elbany Sandra, Matonti Frédéric, Burillon Carole, Denis Philippe, Kodjikian Laurent, Mathis Thibaud
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare refractive outcomes of the foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (Carlevale® FIL-SSF) with the iris-claw lens (Artisan®).
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent a FIL-SSF implantation or an iris-claw implantation between January 2020 and November 2022 in the ophthalmology departments of Hospices Civils de Lyon (France).
RESULTS: A total of 271 eyes from 265 patients were included: 96 eyes in the FIL-SSF group and 175 eyes in the iris-claw group. At 6 months, the mean (SD) surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly lower in the FIL-SSF group with 0.3 (1.8) diopters against 0.8 (2.1) diopters in the iris-claw group (p = 0.01). The mean (SD) refractive error was also lower for the FIL-SSF group with 0.1 (1.2) diopters versus 0.5 (1.6) diopters in the iris-claw group (p < 0.001). The mean best corrected visual acuity at 6 months was not significantly different between FIL-SSF and iris-claw lens with 0.47 (0.58) logMAR and 0.39 (0.55) logMAR, respectively (p = 0.12). However, the mean (SD) operative time was longer for FIL-SSF implantation in comparison to iris-claw implantation (59.8 (21.1) minutes versus 41.9 (24.4) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001)). The rate of postoperative complications was similar between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that FIL-SSF achieves better refractive results than iris-claw lens, with a similar rate of postoperative complications. As a relatively new implantation technique, there is a learning curve required to reduce operating time.
KEY MESSAGES: What is known? Multiple surgical options for correcting aphakia in the absence of capsular support can be used. Currently, foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (FIL-SSF, Carlevale®) and iris-claw (Artisan®) implants are the two preferred options, but there is no consensus on the best technique to adopt. What is new? We showed that FIL-SSF has a significantly lower surgically induced astigmatism compared to the iris-claw implant. Similar rate of postoperative complications was found between these two techniques. Future studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to ascertain its tolerance.
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent a FIL-SSF implantation or an iris-claw implantation between January 2020 and November 2022 in the ophthalmology departments of Hospices Civils de Lyon (France).
RESULTS: A total of 271 eyes from 265 patients were included: 96 eyes in the FIL-SSF group and 175 eyes in the iris-claw group. At 6 months, the mean (SD) surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly lower in the FIL-SSF group with 0.3 (1.8) diopters against 0.8 (2.1) diopters in the iris-claw group (p = 0.01). The mean (SD) refractive error was also lower for the FIL-SSF group with 0.1 (1.2) diopters versus 0.5 (1.6) diopters in the iris-claw group (p < 0.001). The mean best corrected visual acuity at 6 months was not significantly different between FIL-SSF and iris-claw lens with 0.47 (0.58) logMAR and 0.39 (0.55) logMAR, respectively (p = 0.12). However, the mean (SD) operative time was longer for FIL-SSF implantation in comparison to iris-claw implantation (59.8 (21.1) minutes versus 41.9 (24.4) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001)). The rate of postoperative complications was similar between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that FIL-SSF achieves better refractive results than iris-claw lens, with a similar rate of postoperative complications. As a relatively new implantation technique, there is a learning curve required to reduce operating time.
KEY MESSAGES: What is known? Multiple surgical options for correcting aphakia in the absence of capsular support can be used. Currently, foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (FIL-SSF, Carlevale®) and iris-claw (Artisan®) implants are the two preferred options, but there is no consensus on the best technique to adopt. What is new? We showed that FIL-SSF has a significantly lower surgically induced astigmatism compared to the iris-claw implant. Similar rate of postoperative complications was found between these two techniques. Future studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to ascertain its tolerance.