Secondary Sutureless Posterior Chamber Lens Implantation with Two Specifically Designed IOLs: Iris Claw Lens versus Sutureless Trans-Scleral Plugs Fixated Lens

Daniel Seknazi, Donato Colantuono, Rachid Tahiri, Francesca Amoroso, Alexandra Miere, Eric H. Souied
2021 Journal of Clinical Medicine  
Background. The management of patients with aphakia and/or lack of capsular support remains debated. The sutureless posterior chamber IOL (PCIOL) fixation is a very useful surgical option. The purpose of the study was to compare the early outcomes as well as post-operative best corrected visual acuity, refractive errors and complications of two different techniques of sutureless PCIOL secondary implantation. Methods. Patients who underwent secondary implantation from December 2019 to January
more » ... 1 in the Department of Ophthalmology of Creteil Hospital, and in the Granville Ophthalmology Center, were retrospectively included. Eyes implanted with the iris claw lens (Artisan Aphakia IOL model 205, Ophtec BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) were included in group 1, and eyes implanted with a newly developed sutureless trans-scleral plugs fixated lens (STSPFL, Carlevale lens, Soleko, Pontecorvo, Italy) were included in group 2. Results. Twenty-two eyes of 22 patients were enrolled in group 1, and twenty eyes of 20 patients in group 2. No difference was found in visual acuity between two groups (0.35 +/− 0.29 logmar for group 1 and 0.23 +/− 0.51 logmar for group 2) (p = 0.15) at mean post-operative follow up (6.19 +/− 3.44 months for group 1 and 6.42 +/− 3.96 months for group 2) (p = 0.13). Both the mean refractive error (MRE) and induced astigmatism (IA) were greater in group 1 compared to group 2, respectively: the MRE was 0.99 +/− 0.57 vs. 0.46 +/− 0.36 (p < 0.01), and IA was 1.72 +/− 0.96 vs. 0.72 +/− 0.52 (p < 0.01). Conclusions. No significant differences in terms of the recovery of visual acuity were found between the two groups. Group 2 (STPFL) gives better results in our sample due to less post-operative induced astigmatism and less refractive error.
doi:10.3390/jcm10102216 pmid:34065508 fatcat:qmsll6xhojgupna2tf47ytpwoe