Bilateral Giant Retinal Tear Following Posterior Chamber Phakic Intraocular Lens Implantation

Analysis of perioperative problems related to intraocular Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation

PURPOSE

To introduce a modified procedure of ICL implantation, to summarize the perioperative problems and their corresponding treatment after myopia correction with Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL), and to compare the difference of complications between the no-hole ICL and hole ICL.

METHODS

We searched all articles on ICL-related perioperative problems and their corresponding treatment in Scopus, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for the last 22 years.

RESULTS

ICL implantation is safe, effective, stable and predictable in the correction of myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism, but can also cause a series of perioperative problems, including intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

There are many kinds of complications related to ICL, but the common intraoperative and postoperative complications mainly include abnormality of arch height, abnormal position of ICL, loss of corneal endothelial cells and corneal decompensation, high intraocular pressure and secondary glaucoma, cataract and night vision symptoms. Compared with ICL without central pore, the incidence of complications such as loss of corneal endothelial cells and corneal decompensation, high intraocular pressure and secondary glaucoma and cataract was relatively lower in central hole ICL, while postoperative complications such as night vision symptoms were obvious.

Clear lens extraction for patients who are unfit for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and implantable contact lenses in central Indian population

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to establish the safety of clear lens extraction (CLE) for the correction of high myopia in patients unfit for implantable contact lenses (ICLs) and laser in situ keratomileusis in the central Indian population.

Methods:

In this retrospective observational study performed at a tertiary care centre, medical records of the patients who had undergone CLE with implantation of intraocular lens (IOL) to treat high myopia were retrieved. Details of the demographic profile, surgical procedure, complications, power, and type of IOLs implanted were recorded.

Results:

The average postoperative follow-up period was 64.1 ± 4.2 months. The average postoperative spherical power was −1.4 ± 0.6 D, which was much lower than the preoperative spectacle power - 15 ± 4.4 D. There was improvement in the postoperative visual acuity (0.4 ± 0.2 logMAR) from the preoperative distant uncorrected visual acuity (0.8 ± 0.2 logMAR). No significant change in intraocular pressure (IOP) was observed. The postoperative average anterior chamber depth (ACD) (2.66 ± 0.1 mm) was significantly deeper than the preoperative ACD (2.61 ± 0.1 mm) P = 0.00. Barrage laser was required for lattice degeneration in one patient before CLE and in two patients during follow-up. Two patients (8.7%) required Nd:YAG capsulotomy for posterior capsular opacification. None of the patients had corneal decompensation, retinal detachment, or endophthalmitis.

Conclusion:

CLE with implantation of IOL is the safe procedure for correcting high myopia in patients who are unfit for ICL. None of the patient had eye loss in the follow-up period of 5 years. The low incidence of complications can be attributable to the closed chamber lens removal and implantation of IOL and prophylactic retinal treatment.

Pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckle versus pars plana vitrectomy for giant retinal tear

BACKGROUND

A giant retinal tear (GRT) is a full-thickness neurosensory retinal break extending for 90° or more in the presence of a posterior vitreous detachment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckle versus pars plana vitrectomy alone for eyes with giant retinal tear.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 8), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in our electronic search. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckle versus pars plana vitrectomy alone for giant retinal tear regardless of age, gender, lens status (e.g. phakic or pseudophakic eyes) of the affected eye(s), or etiology of GRT among participants enrolled in these trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-text articles, using Covidence. Any differences in classification between the two review authors were resolved through discussion. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We found two RCTs in abstract format (105 participants randomized). Neither RCT was published in full. Based on the data presented in the abstracts, scleral buckling might be beneficial (relative risk of re-attachement ranged from 3.0 to 4.4), but the findings are inconclusive due to a lack of peer reviewed publication and insufficient information for assessing risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence from RCTs on which to base clinical recommendations for scleral buckle combined with pars plana vitrectomy for giant retinal tear. RCTs are clearly needed to address this evidence gap. Such trials should be randomized, and patients should be classified by giant retinal tear characteristics (extension (90º, 90º to 180º, > 180º), location (oral, anterior, posterior to equator)), proliferative vitreoretinopathy stage, and endotamponade. Analysis should include both short-term (three months and six months) and long-term (one year to two years) outcomes for primary retinal reattachment, mean change in best corrected visual acuity, study eyes that required second surgery for retinal reattachment, and adverse events such as elevation of intraocular pressure above 21 mmHg, choroidal detachment, cystoid macular edema, macular pucker, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, and progression of cataract in initially phakic eyes.

Giant retinal tears

A giant retinal tear (GRT) is a full-thickness neurosensory retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for three or more clock hours in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. Its incidence in large population-based studies has been estimated as 1.5% of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments, with a significant male preponderance, and bilaterality in 12.8%. Most GRTs are idiopathic, with trauma, hereditary vitreoretinopathies and high myopia each being causative in decreasing frequency. The vast majority of GRTs are currently managed with a pars plana vitrectomy; the use of adjunctive circumferential scleral buckling is debated, but no studies have shown a clear anatomical or visual advantage with its use. Similarly, silicone oil tamponade does not influence long-term outcomes when compared with gas. Primary and final retinal reattachment rates are achieved in 88% and 95% of patients, respectively. Even when the retina remains attached, however, visual recovery may be limited. Furthermore, fellow eyes of patients with a GRT are at higher risk of developing retinal tears and retinal detachment. Prophylactic treatment under these circumstances may be considered but there is no firm evidence of its efficacy at the present time.

Interventions for prevention of giant retinal tear in the fellow eye

BACKGROUND

A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 6 December 2011. In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears.

Interventions for prevention of giant retinal tear in the fellow eye

BACKGROUND

A giant retinal tear is a full-thickness retinal break that extends circumferentially around the retina for 90 degrees or more in the presence of a posteriorly detached vitreous. It causes significant visual morbidity from retinal detachment and proliferative vitreoretinopathy. The fellow eye of patients who have had a spontaneous giant retinal tear has an increased risk of developing a giant retinal tear, a retinal detachment or both. Interventions such as 360-degree encircling scleral buckling, 360-degree cryotherapy and 360-degree laser photocoagulation have been advocated by some ophthalmologists as prophylaxis for the fellow eye against the development of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment, or to prevent its extension.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic 360-degree interventions in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tear to prevent the occurrence of a giant retinal tear and/or a retinal detachment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2008), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2008) and Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2008). In addition, we searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to 2008 for information about other relevant studies. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 15 December 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one prophylactic treatment for fellow eyes of patients with giant retinal tear against observation (no treatment) or another form of prophylactic treatment. In the absence of RCTs, we planned to discuss case-control studies that met the inclusion criteria but we would not conduct a meta-analysis using these studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We did not find any studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review and therefore no assessment of methodological quality or meta-analysis could be performed.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No strong evidence in the literature was found to support or refute prophylactic 360-degree treatments to prevent a giant retinal tear or a retinal detachment in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral giant retinal tears.

Implants phakes de chambre antérieure versus chambre postérieure

At a time when some of the limitations of photoablation have been defined, such as worry concerning secondary ectasia, a renewed interest in phakic implantation has arisen. This is driven by the goal of avoiding correcting high ametropia with LASIK and is based on the development of soft foldable biomaterials. When all phakic IOLs are in front of the natural lens, two varieties of lenses can be distinguished, depending on whether it is located in the anterior or posterior chamber. The various models available in 2006 and those under current evaluation are reviewed. We do not report details of clinical studies that vary in cohort size and follow-up. The advantages and limitations are discussed for each type of phakic IOL. Adequate although not exclusive indications are deduced. There is no phakic lens that has proved to be superior to the others in terms of safety. All have the ability to provide a visual benefit with a gain in best corrected visual acuity. The difference is based on anatomical effects, requiring long-term follow-up in the evaluation of angles, lens, iris, and endothelium.