Incidence of dislocated and subluxed iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens and outcomes following re-enclavation

Decision taking in corneal refractive surgery

A 27-year-old woman who wants to get rid of contact lenses and spectacles was seen at our clinic. She had strabismus surgery as a child and was patched for the right eye but now shows mild nondisturbing exophoria. Infrequently, she likes to box in the sports school. Her corrected distance visual acuity at presentation in the right eye was 20/16 with -3.75 -0.75 × 50 and in the left eye 20/16 with -3.75 -1.25 × 142. Her cycloplegic refraction in the right eye was -3.75 -0.75 × 44 and in the left eye was -3.25 -1.25 × 147. The left eye is the dominant eye. The tear break-up time was 8 seconds in both eyes, and the Schirmer tear test was 7 to 10 mm in right and left eyes, respectively. Pupil sizes under mesopic conditions were 6.62 mm and 6.68 mm. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) (measured from the epithelium) in the right eye was 3.89 mm and in the left eye was 3.87 mm. The corneal thickness was 503 μm and 493 μm of the right and left eye, respectively. Corneal endothelial cell density was on average 2700 cells/mm2 for both eyes. Slitlamp biomicroscopy showed clear corneas and a normal flat iris configuration. Supplemental Figures 1 to 4 (available at http://links.lww.com/JRS/A818, http://links.lww.com/JRS/A819, http://links.lww.com/JRS/A820, and http://links.lww.com/JRS/A821) show the corneal topography and Belin-Ambrósio deviation (BAD) maps at presentation of the right eye and left eye, respectively. Would you consider this patient a candidate for corneal refractive surgery (eg, laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy, laser in situ keratomileusis [LASIK], or small-incision lenticule extraction [SMILE] procedure)? Has your opinion changed given the recent opinion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding LASIK?1 The patient herself is slightly favoring an implantation of a phakic intraocular lens (pIOL), as she prefers something reversible. Would you implant a pIOL, and which type of IOL, for this level of myopia? What is your diagnosis or are additional diagnostic methodologies needed to establish a diagnosis? What is your treatment advice for this patient? REFERENCES 1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) lasers-patient labeling recommendations; draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff; availability. July 28, 2022, Federal Register; 87 FR 45334. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/laser-assisted-situ-keratomileusis-lasik-lasers-patient-labeling-recommendations Accessed January 25, 2023.

Myopic Correction with Iris-Fixated Phakic Intraocular Lenses: Twelve-Year Results

PURPOSE

To evaluate a 12-year follow-up of myopic patients after iris-fixated phakic intraocular lenses (IF pIOLs) implantation. Setting. Ophthalmology Department, Military University Hospital in Prague (Czech Republic).

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

We describe the results of a cohort study that included 85 eyes of 46 myopic patients who underwent implantation of Verisyse myopia, Veriflex, and Verisyse myopia toric (all Abbott Medical Optics, Inc.) intraocular lenses. Refractive functions and adverse events were assessed preoperatively, at 6 months, and 1, 2, 5, and 12 years after IF pIOL implantation.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was measured as -9.37 ± 2.87 D, 0.14 ± 0.61 D, and -0.42 ± 1.08 D, preoperatively, at 6 months and 12 years postoperatively, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the cylinder after surgery. At 12 years postoperatively, 90% of eyes had uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/40 and 64% of 20/20. The safety index was 1.10 for the whole postoperative follow-up period. We found cataract formation in 3 eyes (3.5%). The endothelial cells loss (EC loss) directly caused by IF pIOL implantation was 6.0%, 8.10%, 12.8%, and 11.9%, at 1, 2, 5, and 12 years, respectively. In our cohort, 95% of eyes lost a higher percentage of EC than would be expected from a physiological loss at 12 years postoperatively. We found a significant negative interaction between preoperative pachymetry and EC loss, indicating that the lower pachymetry leads to a faster decline in endothelial cells density (ECD). IF pIOL re-enclavation was found in 28% of eyes. 7% of subluxations were caused by trauma. The mean time of nontraumatic re-enclavation was 6 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed the advantages of IF pIOL implantation due to rapid visual recovery and stable visual function over the 12-year follow-up and also showed the influence of lower corneal pachymetry regarding EC loss.

Comparative study of small-incision lenticule extraction and phakic intraocular lens implantation for the correction of high myopia: 6-year results

PURPOSE

To compare the long-term safety, efficacy, and complications of small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and flexible iris-fixated anterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) implantation for the treatment of high myopia.

SETTING

University of Health Science Turkey, Beyoğlu Eye Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent SMILE or pIOL (Artiflex) implantation for myopia were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent from -6.00 to -10.00 diopters (D) were included in the study.

RESULTS

There were 47 eyes of 32 patients in the SMILE group and 52 eyes of 29 patients in the pIOL group. The mean postoperative follow-up was 63.75 ± 18.40 months in the SMILE group and 65.38 ± 16.22 months in the p-IOL group (P = .71). At 6 years postoperatively, refractive predictability was slightly better in the pIOL group, and the percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the attempted correction were 77% and 83% in the SMILE and pIOL groups, respectively. Although mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was comparable (SMILE, 0.12 ± 0.06 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]; p-IOL, 0.09 ± 0.05 logMAR), the safety indices (1.08 ± 0.22 vs 1.11 ± 0.20; P = .02) and the efficacy indices (0.92 ± 0.24 vs 1.11 ± 0.22; P = .03) were statistically significantly higher after pIOL implantation. Despite a mean of 11.09% of the endothelial cell being lost at 6 years after pIOL implantation, no pIOL was explanted due to endothelial cell loss.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comparative and long-term study, iris-fixated anterior chamber pIOL implantation for high myopic correction showed slightly better safety and efficacy profiles but with statistically significant endothelial cell loss.

Middle- and long-term results after iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens implantation in myopic and hyperopic patients: a meta-analysis

The iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) has been available for over 25 years. To provide a clear picture of outcomes and risks, for this systematic review and meta-analysis, the literature was searched for reports on middle- and long-term effects. The iris-fixated phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) has been available for over 25 years. To provide a clear picture of outcomes and risks, for this systematic review and meta-analysis, the literature was searched for reports on middle- and long-term effects of iris-fixated pIOLs on myopic and hyperopic eyes with a follow-up of at least 2 to 4 years. Visual and refractive results after implantation for correction of myopia are positive and the complication rate is low. Endothelial cell loss appears to be at an acceptable rate, although the range of endothelial cell change is too wide to draw firm conclusions. Care should be taken when considering an iris-fixated pIOL for hyperopic eyes because complication rates, particularly pigment dispersion, might be higher than those in myopic eyes. More well-designed, long-term studies are needed, especially in hyperopic eyes. The authors advocate for standardized reporting of refractive surgery data. Initiatives proposed by journal authors and editors to achieve uniformity should be supported.

Outcomes and Determinants of Posterior Dislocated Intraocular Lens Management at a Tertiary Eye Hospital in Central Saudi Arabia

PURPOSE:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the determinants of visual outcomes, complications after managing the posterior dislocated intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS:

Patients with posterior dislocated IOL managed between 2002 and 2016 in our institute were reviewed. Ocular status and causes for dislocation were noted. Success was defined as uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20–20/200 at the last follow-up. The risk factors were associated with the success.

RESULTS:

Of the 79 eyes with posterior dislocated IOL, 40 (50.6%) eyes had vision <20/400 at presentation. Glaucoma and retinal detachment were present in 12 (15.2%) and 5 (6.3%) eyes. IOL was removed from 33 (41.8%) eyes. Secondary IOL was implanted in 25 (31.6%) eyes, and IOL was repositioned in 19 (24.1%) eyes. The median duration of follow-up was 2.1 years. The final UCVA was “20/20–20/60” and “>20/200” in 45 (57%) and 14 (17.7%) eyes. The main causes of Severe visual impairment (SVI) included glaucoma (5), corneal decompensation (5), retinal detachment (4), and macular edema (3). Young age (P = 0.02), late IOL dislocation (P = 0.005), primary IOL implant (P < 0.01), SVI (P = 0.09), IOL removal (P = 0.06), and no glaucoma at presentation were significantly associated to the success. Late IOL dislocation (P = 0.05) and no glaucoma (P = 0.05) were independently associated to the success.

CONCLUSION:

The management of the dislocation of IOL had promising visual outcomes. Glaucoma and early dislocation predict poor vision after dislocated IOL management. Close monitoring is needed to manage complications.

Dynamic tracking of Purkinje images for the comparison of pseudophakodonesis between in-the-bag and secondary fixated intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the pseudophakodonesis of in-the-bag intraocular lens (IOL) and a secondary fixated IOL by tracking the Purkinje image IV.

SETTING

Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital and Eye Research Centre, Chennai, India.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

The IOL movement was recorded via slitlamp videography (DC3), streamed in video editor (Pinnacle), and evaluated by ImageJ analysis. The positional difference of Purkinje IV in relation to the stationary image Purkinje I at 3 random timeframes was measured. Pseudophakodonesis was quantified, compared, and correlated clinically.

RESULTS

The study comprised 127 eyes that had posterior chamber IOLs (PC IOLs) (n = 50), anterior chamber IOLs (AC IOLs) (n = 20), iris-claw IOLs (n = 20), glued IOLs (n = 30), and sutured scleral-fixated IOLs (n = 7). The iris-claw IOL showed significant difference in Purkinje IV at various timeframes (P = .0418) whereas others showed no significant change. On comparison of the Purkinje IV difference, there was a significant difference between the PC IOL and the iris-claw IOL (P = .0001), the glued IOL and the iris-claw IOL (P = .0020), and the AC IOL and the iris-claw IOL (P = .0302). The iris-claw IOL showed significant exaggeration of the position of Purkinje IV (P = .0395) after saccade. Pseudophakodonesis seemed mild (difference < 0.5 mm) in the PC IOL (68%), glued IOL (53.3%), and AC IOL (50%); moderate in the scleral-fixated IOL (71.4%); and severe (≥ 1.0 mm) in the iris-claw IOL (55%).

CONCLUSION

Positional difference in Purkinje IV was highest in iris-claw IOLs and lowest in PC IOLs.