Clinical Outcomes of Intrascleral Fixation of Intraocular Lens Compared to Ciliary Sulcus Implantation and Transscleral Fixation.

Q3 Medicine
Eun Gyu Yoon, Youngsub Eom, Minji Woo, Hyun Sun Jeon, Seong-Jae Kim, Jong Suk Song, Hyo Myung Kim
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Intrascleral Fixation of Intraocular Lens Compared to Ciliary Sulcus Implantation and Transscleral Fixation.","authors":"Eun Gyu Yoon,&nbsp;Youngsub Eom,&nbsp;Minji Woo,&nbsp;Hyun Sun Jeon,&nbsp;Seong-Jae Kim,&nbsp;Jong Suk Song,&nbsp;Hyo Myung Kim","doi":"10.3341/kjo.2022.0093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of intrascleral fixation of the three-piece intraocular lenses (IOLs) 2.5 mm posterior to the limbus with ciliary sulcus implantation and transscleral fixation 2.5 mm posterior to the limbus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-five eyes of 65 patients who underwent ciliary sulcus implantation or transscleral or intrascleral fixation of the AMO Sensar AR40e IOL were retrospectively reviewed. The postoperative refractive prediction error, back-calculated effective lens position (ELP), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and postoperative residual cylinder were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant differences in the median (interquartile range) postoperative refractive prediction error (diopters [D]) among the three groups (p < 0.001): for ciliary sulcus implantation (33 eyes), -0.89 D (-1.21 to -0.56 D); for transscleral fixation (10 eyes), -0.40 D (-0.78 to -0.22 D); and for intrascleral fixation (22 eyes), 0.01 D (-0.28 to 0.34 D). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed in the median back-calculated ELP: for ciliary sulcus implantation, 4.35 mm (3.95 to 4.55 mm); for transscleral fixation, 4.51 mm (4.34 to 4.76 mm); and for intrascleral fixation, 4.90 mm (4.56 to 5.35 mm). There were no differences in the median postoperative CDVA (0, 0.10, and 0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, respectively; p = 0.083) and the residual cylinder (-0.75, -1.50, and -0.63 D, respectively; p = 0.074) among three groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intrascleral fixation showed no myopic shift and the most posterior lens position, while ciliary sulcus implantation induced the greatest myopic shift and the most anterior lens position. However, there was no significant difference in the postoperative CDVA or astigmatism among the eyes with different IOL insertion methods, demonstrating good IOL stability and vision outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":17883,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","volume":"37 2","pages":"128-136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d5/93/kjo-2022-0093.PMC10151168.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2022.0093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of intrascleral fixation of the three-piece intraocular lenses (IOLs) 2.5 mm posterior to the limbus with ciliary sulcus implantation and transscleral fixation 2.5 mm posterior to the limbus.

Methods: Sixty-five eyes of 65 patients who underwent ciliary sulcus implantation or transscleral or intrascleral fixation of the AMO Sensar AR40e IOL were retrospectively reviewed. The postoperative refractive prediction error, back-calculated effective lens position (ELP), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and postoperative residual cylinder were compared.

Results: There were significant differences in the median (interquartile range) postoperative refractive prediction error (diopters [D]) among the three groups (p < 0.001): for ciliary sulcus implantation (33 eyes), -0.89 D (-1.21 to -0.56 D); for transscleral fixation (10 eyes), -0.40 D (-0.78 to -0.22 D); and for intrascleral fixation (22 eyes), 0.01 D (-0.28 to 0.34 D). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed in the median back-calculated ELP: for ciliary sulcus implantation, 4.35 mm (3.95 to 4.55 mm); for transscleral fixation, 4.51 mm (4.34 to 4.76 mm); and for intrascleral fixation, 4.90 mm (4.56 to 5.35 mm). There were no differences in the median postoperative CDVA (0, 0.10, and 0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, respectively; p = 0.083) and the residual cylinder (-0.75, -1.50, and -0.63 D, respectively; p = 0.074) among three groups.

Conclusions: Intrascleral fixation showed no myopic shift and the most posterior lens position, while ciliary sulcus implantation induced the greatest myopic shift and the most anterior lens position. However, there was no significant difference in the postoperative CDVA or astigmatism among the eyes with different IOL insertion methods, demonstrating good IOL stability and vision outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

人工晶状体巩膜内固定术与睫状沟植入术和经巩膜固定术的临床效果比较。
目的:比较睫状沟植入术和经巩膜植入术在角膜缘后2.5 mm三片人工晶状体巩膜内固定的临床效果。方法:对65例经睫状沟植入术或经巩膜或巩膜内固定的AMO Sensar AR40e人工晶状体患者65眼进行回顾性分析。比较术后屈光预测误差、后算有效晶状体位置(ELP)、矫正距离视力(CDVA)和术后残柱。结果:三组患者术后屈光预测误差中位数(四分位间距)(diopters [D])差异有统计学意义(p < 0.001):睫状沟植入术(33眼)为-0.89 D (-1.21 ~ -0.56 D);经巩膜固定(10眼),-0.40 D (-0.78 ~ -0.22 D);巩膜内固定(22眼)为0.01 D (-0.28 ~ 0.34 D)。中位背算ELP差异显著(p < 0.001):睫状沟植入术为4.35 mm (3.95 ~ 4.55 mm);经巩膜固定:4.51 mm (4.34 ~ 4.76 mm);巩膜内固定为4.90 mm (4.56 ~ 5.35 mm)。术后中位CDVA无差异(分别为最小分辨角的0、0.10和0对数);p = 0.083)和残柱(-0.75、-1.50、-0.63 D);P = 0.074)。结论:巩膜内固定无近视移位,晶状体位置最后侧;睫状沟植入术近视移位最大,晶状体位置最前侧。不同人工晶状体植入方式的眼术后CDVA和散光无明显差异,表明人工晶状体的稳定性和视力效果良好。
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
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
×
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