Cargando…

Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty

AIM: To conduct a retrospective analysis of secondary IOL implantation in patients who underwent PK with no simultaneous IOL implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective study of the secondary implantation of IOLs was conducted in 46 eyes that underwent a primary operation with PK and cata...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krysik, Katarzyna, Dobrowolski, Dariusz, Wroblewska-Czajka, Ewa, Lyssek-Boron, Anita, Wylegala, Edward
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6157166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30298105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/3271017
_version_ 1783358224440754176
author Krysik, Katarzyna
Dobrowolski, Dariusz
Wroblewska-Czajka, Ewa
Lyssek-Boron, Anita
Wylegala, Edward
author_facet Krysik, Katarzyna
Dobrowolski, Dariusz
Wroblewska-Czajka, Ewa
Lyssek-Boron, Anita
Wylegala, Edward
author_sort Krysik, Katarzyna
collection PubMed
description AIM: To conduct a retrospective analysis of secondary IOL implantation in patients who underwent PK with no simultaneous IOL implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective study of the secondary implantation of IOLs was conducted in 46 eyes that underwent a primary operation with PK and cataract/lens extraction with no IOL implantation due to capsule rupture or combining corneal or intraocular complications. The minimum period from PK was 12 months. All secondary IOL implantations were performed from January 2011 to August 2017. Aphakic postkeratoplasty patients were treated using one of the surgical techniques for secondary IOL implantation. In-the-bag IOL implantation was possible if the posterior capsule was complete. If the lens capsule remnants were sufficient to provide secure IOL support, an in-the-sulcus IOL implantation was performed. Scleral fixation was offered in eyes with extensive capsular deficiency or the presence of the vitreous body in anterior chamber. BCVA and expected and achieved refraction were evaluated; we included using two biometry devices, and results were compared. RESULTS: The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) before surgery ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 (mean 0.54 ± 0.17). After secondary IOL implantation, CDVA ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 (mean 0.43 ± 0.14) at postoperative 1 month and from 0.3 to 0.9 (mean 0.55 ± 0.15) at postoperative 6 months (p < 0.05). Comparison of the final refraction using two methods of biometry showed no statistically significant difference in the group that underwent scleral fixation of the IOL, similar to the findings for the in-the-bag and in-the-sulcus IOL implantation groups. In the scleral-fixation group, p=0.55 for the USG biometry technique and p=0.22 for the OB technique. p values for the IOL-implantation group were p=0.49 and p=0.44, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both implantation methods are safe for the patients. Final refraction is depending on the technique and indication to keratoplasty. Both biometry techniques deliver precise data for IOL choice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6157166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61571662018-10-08 Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty Krysik, Katarzyna Dobrowolski, Dariusz Wroblewska-Czajka, Ewa Lyssek-Boron, Anita Wylegala, Edward J Ophthalmol Research Article AIM: To conduct a retrospective analysis of secondary IOL implantation in patients who underwent PK with no simultaneous IOL implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective study of the secondary implantation of IOLs was conducted in 46 eyes that underwent a primary operation with PK and cataract/lens extraction with no IOL implantation due to capsule rupture or combining corneal or intraocular complications. The minimum period from PK was 12 months. All secondary IOL implantations were performed from January 2011 to August 2017. Aphakic postkeratoplasty patients were treated using one of the surgical techniques for secondary IOL implantation. In-the-bag IOL implantation was possible if the posterior capsule was complete. If the lens capsule remnants were sufficient to provide secure IOL support, an in-the-sulcus IOL implantation was performed. Scleral fixation was offered in eyes with extensive capsular deficiency or the presence of the vitreous body in anterior chamber. BCVA and expected and achieved refraction were evaluated; we included using two biometry devices, and results were compared. RESULTS: The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) before surgery ranged from 0.1 to 0.8 (mean 0.54 ± 0.17). After secondary IOL implantation, CDVA ranged from 0.2 to 0.8 (mean 0.43 ± 0.14) at postoperative 1 month and from 0.3 to 0.9 (mean 0.55 ± 0.15) at postoperative 6 months (p < 0.05). Comparison of the final refraction using two methods of biometry showed no statistically significant difference in the group that underwent scleral fixation of the IOL, similar to the findings for the in-the-bag and in-the-sulcus IOL implantation groups. In the scleral-fixation group, p=0.55 for the USG biometry technique and p=0.22 for the OB technique. p values for the IOL-implantation group were p=0.49 and p=0.44, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both implantation methods are safe for the patients. Final refraction is depending on the technique and indication to keratoplasty. Both biometry techniques deliver precise data for IOL choice. Hindawi 2018-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6157166/ /pubmed/30298105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/3271017 Text en Copyright © 2018 Katarzyna Krysik et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Krysik, Katarzyna
Dobrowolski, Dariusz
Wroblewska-Czajka, Ewa
Lyssek-Boron, Anita
Wylegala, Edward
Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title_full Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title_fullStr Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title_short Comparison of the Techniques of Secondary Intraocular Lens Implantation after Penetrating Keratoplasty
title_sort comparison of the techniques of secondary intraocular lens implantation after penetrating keratoplasty
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6157166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30298105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/3271017
work_keys_str_mv AT krysikkatarzyna comparisonofthetechniquesofsecondaryintraocularlensimplantationafterpenetratingkeratoplasty
AT dobrowolskidariusz comparisonofthetechniquesofsecondaryintraocularlensimplantationafterpenetratingkeratoplasty
AT wroblewskaczajkaewa comparisonofthetechniquesofsecondaryintraocularlensimplantationafterpenetratingkeratoplasty
AT lyssekboronanita comparisonofthetechniquesofsecondaryintraocularlensimplantationafterpenetratingkeratoplasty
AT wylegalaedward comparisonofthetechniquesofsecondaryintraocularlensimplantationafterpenetratingkeratoplasty