Exploring the impact of pupil expansion techniques on cataract surgery: unveiling key complications and clinical outcomes: a comparative analysis of 1266 eyes.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Asaf Achiron, Tal Yahalomi, Michael Ostrovsky, Eliya Levinger, Eyal Cohen, Omar Elhaddad, Derek Tole, Kieren Darcy, Raimo Tuuminen
{"title":"Exploring the impact of pupil expansion techniques on cataract surgery: unveiling key complications and clinical outcomes: a comparative analysis of 1266 eyes.","authors":"Asaf Achiron, Tal Yahalomi, Michael Ostrovsky, Eliya Levinger, Eyal Cohen, Omar Elhaddad, Derek Tole, Kieren Darcy, Raimo Tuuminen","doi":"10.1007/s00417-025-06748-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In cataract surgery, inadequate pupil dilation presents a major surgical challenge by narrowing the operation field and restricting visibility and movement. We aim to compare cataract surgery complication rates and clinical outcomes using different pupil expansion methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study grouped patients according to four techniques of mechanical pupil expansion techniques: sphincterotomy (N = 339), iris stretching (N = 242), iris hooks (N = 391) and expansion rings (N = 294). Incidences and odds ratios for major complications and outcomes were compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This single-center study included 1266 adult patients who underwent routine cataract surgery with mechanical pupil dilatation. The mean (± SD) age was 75.5 (± 13.0) years and 727 (57%) patients were male. The risk of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) did not differ between the groups. Iris hooks were associated with the highest incidence of posterior capsular rupture (PCR) (3.3%) as compared to sphincterotomy, stretching and expansion rings (0.9%, 0.4% and 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.016). However, this effect was not supported by multivariable analysis. Zonular dialysis tended to be higher among eyes operated with iris hooks and pupil expansion rings, compared with iris stretching and sphincterotomy (2.0% and 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.058) and was found to be independently associated with a specific mechanical pupil expansion method on multivariable analysis (P = 0.050). No differences were observed for other complications, intraocular pressure or best-corrected visual acuity (VA) gain. Surgeon seniority was a significant protective factor from postoperative uveitis on multivariable analysis (P = 0.032).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our large cohort study found no difference between the groups regarding major complications or clinical outcomes, suggesting that all four methods may be equally safe.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>WHAT IS KNOWN : • In cataract surgery, inadequate pupil dilation presents a major surgical challenge by narrowing the operation field and restricting visibility and movement. • Different pupil dilation methods have been used, ranged from topical and intracameral mydriatics and visco-mydriasis to mechanical dilation maneuvers. • Four principal techniques of mechanical pupil expansion, including sphincterotomies, manual iris stretching, iris retracting hooks and pupil expansion rings, are available.</p><p><strong>What is new: </strong>• This single-center study included 1266 adult patients found no difference between the groups regarding major complications or clinical outcomes such as pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME), posterior capsular rupture, zonular dialysis, intraocular pressure, uveitis or best-corrected visual acuity gain. • Surgeon seniority was a significant protective factor from postoperative uveitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06748-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In cataract surgery, inadequate pupil dilation presents a major surgical challenge by narrowing the operation field and restricting visibility and movement. We aim to compare cataract surgery complication rates and clinical outcomes using different pupil expansion methods.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study grouped patients according to four techniques of mechanical pupil expansion techniques: sphincterotomy (N = 339), iris stretching (N = 242), iris hooks (N = 391) and expansion rings (N = 294). Incidences and odds ratios for major complications and outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results: This single-center study included 1266 adult patients who underwent routine cataract surgery with mechanical pupil dilatation. The mean (± SD) age was 75.5 (± 13.0) years and 727 (57%) patients were male. The risk of pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) did not differ between the groups. Iris hooks were associated with the highest incidence of posterior capsular rupture (PCR) (3.3%) as compared to sphincterotomy, stretching and expansion rings (0.9%, 0.4% and 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.016). However, this effect was not supported by multivariable analysis. Zonular dialysis tended to be higher among eyes operated with iris hooks and pupil expansion rings, compared with iris stretching and sphincterotomy (2.0% and 1.7%, respectively, P = 0.058) and was found to be independently associated with a specific mechanical pupil expansion method on multivariable analysis (P = 0.050). No differences were observed for other complications, intraocular pressure or best-corrected visual acuity (VA) gain. Surgeon seniority was a significant protective factor from postoperative uveitis on multivariable analysis (P = 0.032).

Conclusions: Our large cohort study found no difference between the groups regarding major complications or clinical outcomes, suggesting that all four methods may be equally safe.

Key messages: WHAT IS KNOWN : • In cataract surgery, inadequate pupil dilation presents a major surgical challenge by narrowing the operation field and restricting visibility and movement. • Different pupil dilation methods have been used, ranged from topical and intracameral mydriatics and visco-mydriasis to mechanical dilation maneuvers. • Four principal techniques of mechanical pupil expansion, including sphincterotomies, manual iris stretching, iris retracting hooks and pupil expansion rings, are available.

What is new: • This single-center study included 1266 adult patients found no difference between the groups regarding major complications or clinical outcomes such as pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME), posterior capsular rupture, zonular dialysis, intraocular pressure, uveitis or best-corrected visual acuity gain. • Surgeon seniority was a significant protective factor from postoperative uveitis.

背景:在白内障手术中,瞳孔放大不足会缩小手术视野,限制视野和活动,是手术的一大难题。我们旨在比较不同扩瞳方法的白内障手术并发症发生率和临床效果:这项回顾性队列研究根据四种机械瞳孔扩张技术对患者进行分组:括约肌切开术(339 例)、虹膜拉伸术(242 例)、虹膜钩(391 例)和扩张环(294 例)。比较了各组主要并发症的发生率和几率以及结果:这项单中心研究共纳入了 1266 名接受常规白内障手术并进行机械性瞳孔扩张的成年患者。平均(± SD)年龄为 75.5(± 13.0)岁,727 名(57%)患者为男性。两组患者发生假性囊样黄斑水肿(PCME)的风险没有差异。与括约肌切开术、拉伸术和扩张环(分别为 0.9%、0.4% 和 1.4%,P = 0.016)相比,虹膜钩与后囊破裂 (PCR) 的最高发生率(3.3%)相关。然而,多变量分析并不支持这一结果。与虹膜拉伸术和括约肌切开术相比,使用虹膜钩和瞳孔扩张环手术的眼球发生虹膜透析的几率更高(分别为 2.0% 和 1.7%,P = 0.058),并且在多变量分析中发现,虹膜透析与特定的机械瞳孔扩张方法有独立关联(P = 0.050)。在其他并发症、眼压或最佳矫正视力 (VA) 增益方面未观察到差异。在多变量分析中,外科医生的资历是术后葡萄膜炎的一个重要保护因素(P = 0.032):我们的大型队列研究发现,各组在主要并发症或临床结果方面没有差异,这表明所有四种方法可能同样安全:已知信息- 在白内障手术中,瞳孔散大不足会缩小手术视野,限制视野和活动,从而给手术带来很大的挑战。- 不同的散瞳方法已被广泛使用,从局部和巩膜内散瞳剂、粘液散瞳到机械散瞳。- 目前有四种主要的机械扩瞳技术,包括括约肌切开术、手动虹膜拉伸术、虹膜缩回钩和瞳孔扩张环:- 这项由1266名成年患者参与的单中心研究发现,在主要并发症或临床结果方面,如假性角膜囊样黄斑水肿(PCME)、后囊破裂、虹膜透析、眼压、葡萄膜炎或最佳矫正视力增加等方面,各组之间没有差异。- 外科医生的资历是术后葡萄膜炎的重要保护因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
398
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信