Interpseudophakos Elschnig pearls associated with late hyperopic shift: a complication of piggyback posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation

Interlenticular opacification in piggyback AcrySof intraocular lenses: explantation technique and laboratory investigations

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Interlenticular opacification (ILO) is a recognised complication of piggyback intraocular lenses (IOLs). The aetiology, histopathology, and treatment are not clearly defined, however.

METHODS

Two pairs of AcrySof IOLs were explanted from a patient with bilateral ILO. The explantation technique and surgical challenges of IOL exchanges are described. The explanted IOL complexes and a sample of the anterior capsule were examined by phase, polarising, and immunofluorescence microscopy.

RESULTS

A 50 year old man developed ILO bilaterally after piggyback AcrySof IOL implantation. A central contact zone was surrounded by a homogeneous paracentral opacity possibly consisting of extracellular matrix previously laid down by proliferating lens epithelial cells (LECs). These opacities were in turn surrounded by interlenticular Elschnig pearl-type opacities contiguous with the same material filling the periphery of the capsular bag. The IOL complexes were very adherent to the capsular bag and they had to be separated with the help of high viscosity viscoelastic before a single one piece PMMA IOL implantation via large limbal incisions. The sample of anterior capsule showed a ridge configuration from the piling of LECs in the site of apposition with the anterior capsule and cells showing different characteristics on either side of the ridge.

CONCLUSION

Cellular proliferation, deposition of ECM from proliferating LECs, and capsular changes induced by cell metaplasia may lead to ILO formation in piggyback AcrySof IOLs. Careful separation of the AcrySof IOL complex from the capsule, meticulous clean up of the proliferating material, and implantation of single or dual in the bag PMMA IOLs through a large incision with capsulorrhexis enlargement may help in the prevention of recurrence of interface opacification.

Piggyback foldable intraocular lens implantation in patients with microphthalmos

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical results of phacoemulsification and implantation of 2 foldable acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) in microphthalmic eyes.

SETTING

University of Tokyo School of Medicine, Tokyo, Eguchi Eye Hospital, Hakodate, and Osaka Rosai Hospital, Osaka, Japan.

METHODS

This study comprised 5 eyes of 3 patients whose manifest spherical equivalent was +10.5 to +18.0 diopters (D) and axial length was 15.79 to 16.82 mm. After phacoemulsification, 2 foldable acrylic IOLs with a mean power of +43.0 D +/- 9.5 (SD) (range +32.0 to +55.0 D) were implanted in the capsular bag.

RESULTS

There were no significant intraoperative complications, and there was significant improvement in uncorrected and best corrected visual acuities after surgery. The spherical equivalent decreased significantly; however, the postoperative refraction was considerably more hyperopic than predicted in all eyes. Except for posterior synechias in 2 eyes and slight interlenticular opacification in 2 eyes, no major postoperative complications occurred during the mean follow-up of 14.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Implanting 2 piggyback IOLs was beneficial in eyes with an extremely short axial length. However, the current system of lens power calculation markedly underestimates the required lens power, resulting in a hyperopic refractive error after surgery. The benefits of in-the-bag placement of 2 foldable lenses are questionable.

Morphological appearance and size of contact zones of piggyback intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To characterize the morphology, size, and change in size of the contact zone of piggyback intraocular lenses (IOLs) of different materials and optic designs.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 9 eyes of 7 patients received piggyback IOLs of the following materials: poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), acrylic, hydrogel, and silicone. The contact zone between the anterior and posterior IOLs was photodocumented from 1 day to 1 year after surgery using specular microscopy. The contact zone area was measured.

RESULTS

A contact zone was present with all IOL materials studied. The area of contact, however, differed significantly. With PMMA IOLs, the contact zone was small and surrounded by Newton rings, indicating the tiny gap between the IOLs. With IOLs of soft material, such as silicone and hydrogel, it was larger than with PMMA IOLs and had a slightly irregular shape. With foldable acrylic IOLs, it was regular, round, and slightly larger than with the soft materials. The contact area enlarged primarily during the first 3 months after surgery. After 1 year, 2 eyes with acrylic piggyback IOLs had a membrane formation around the contact zone and 2 eyes developed Elschnig pearls between the IOLs.

CONCLUSION

In piggyback IOL eyes, the shape and size of the contact zone were strongly dependent on the IOL material and optic design. Contact area enlargement seemed to be induced by capsule shrinkage. Fibrous membrane formation around the contact zone and Elschnig pearl formation between the piggyback IOLs were long-term complications of this technique.

Piggyback silicone intraocular lenses of opposite power

A patient with high myopia and astigmatism had cataract extraction with implantation of 2 silicone intraocular lenses (IOLs) of opposite power (ie, 1 plus and 1 minus). A Staar AA4203TL toric IOL (+9.50 diopters [D]/3.50 D) and a Staar AQ5010V additive lens (-3.00 D) were used to correct both the astigmatism and the high myopia. The use of the 2 lenses was necessary because the toric IOL was not available in low dioptric powers. A crystalline interpseudophakos deposit developed after 1 week and resolved after 4 weeks. Three months postoperatively, the patient had an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/25.

Opacification of piggyback IOLs associated with an amorphous material attached to interlenticular surfaces

PURPOSE

To report the pathological and ultrastructural features and interval surgical management of an atypical case of opacification between piggyback intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Center for Research on Ocular Therapeutics and Biodevices, Storm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, and Nature Coast EyeCare Institute and Surgery Center, Perry, Florida, USA.

METHODS

Opacification between 2 acrylic piggyback lenses was observed 16 months after implantation, with decreased best corrected visual acuity and a hyperopic shift. Elschnig pearls were observed in the peripheral interface between the lenses, and the central interface was occupied by an amorphous material. The pearls were surgically aspirated, but attempts to remove the central material were unsuccessful. The lenses were explanted and sent to the laboratory. Staining with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), examination under a light microscope, and scanning electron microscopic analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The surfaces of the anterior IOL were relatively clear. The amorphous material, mostly attached to the center of the anterior surface of the posterior IOL, was homogeneously stained with H&E. No cell nucleus was observed in this region. Scanning electron microscopy showed that the IOL edge presented a smooth, regular surface relatively free of deposits. The most central region was covered by an irregular layer of an amorphous compact material with some cracks, fissures, or both on its surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the exact composition of the material between the lenses could not be established, hypotheses were advanced to understand the pathological mechanism associated with this condition. This case is different from those in previous reports of opacification composed of cortex and cells between piggyback IOLs.

Interpseudophakos intraocular lens surface opacification as a late complication of piggyback acrylic posterior chamber lens implantation

We present a case involving opacification of the apposing surfaces of 2 acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) that had been implanted in a piggyback fashion 16 months previously. Clinical observations derived from our experience with piggyback acrylic lens implantation are presented, along with a discussion of late complications of piggyback IOL implantation and recommendations.

Interlenticular opacification: clinicopathological correlation of a complication of posterior chamber piggyback intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To present a clinicopathological correlation of 2 pairs of piggyback posterior chamber intraocular lenses (PC IOLs) explanted because of opacification between the lens optics.

SETTING

Gayton Health Center, Eyesight Associates of Middle Georgia, Warner Robins, Georgia, and Center for Research on Ocular Therapeutics and Biodevices, Storm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

METHODS

Two pairs of piggyback AcrySof lenses were explanted from 2 patients with significant visual loss related to opacification between the optics. They were submitted for pathological analysis. Gross and histopathological examinations were performed, and photomicroscopy was used to document the results.

RESULTS

Gross examination showed accumulation of a membrane-like white material between the lenses. Histopathological examination revealed that the tissue consisted of retained/proliferative lens epithelial cells (bladder cells or pearls) mixed with lens cortical material.

CONCLUSION

Piggyback PC IOLs were explanted in 2 cases because of a newly described complication, interlenticular opacification. Three surgical means may help prevent this complication: meticulous cortical cleanup, especially in the equatorial region; creation of a relatively large continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis to sequester retained cells peripheral to the IOL optic within the equatorial fornix; insertion of the posterior IOL in the capsular bag and the anterior IOL in the ciliary sulcus to isolate retained cells from the interlenticular space.

Piggyback intraocular lens implantation

The piggyback method of implanting two intraocular lenses in one eye has been successfully expanded to address pseudophakic refractive error in normal eyes and eyes that have undergone post-penetrating keratoplasty. Piggyback implantation has been combined with the use of newly available minus-power lenses to provide appropriate power for a cataract patient with keratoconus, as well as to correct pseudophakic myopia. The phenomenon of increased depth of focus in piggybacks may be explained by a contact zone between the lenses. The late complication of inter-lenticular cellular growth with resultant hyperopic shift, opacification, and loss of vision has recently become a concern.

Posterior capsule opacification. Part 2: Clinical findings

The incidence of posterior capsule opacification (PCO), the most common complication of modern cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation, seems to have decreased slightly as a result of improved surgical and cortical cleanup techniques. However, the reported incidence is still significant. The diverse findings on PCO are the result in part of studies using different criteria to clinically judge and quantify the condition. In addition, the influence of intraocular and systemic factors are only now being identified. This second of a 2-part review of PCO focuses on (1) less subjective morphological and patient-dependent means to evaluate and quantify PCO; (2) the influence of ocular factors on PCO; (3) the influence of systemic factors on PCO; (4) available means and approaches to prevent or delay PCO.