Comparing safety and efficiency of two closed-chamber techniques for iridodialysis repair - a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis. METHODS: Seventy five patients with iridodialysis undergoing surgery from February 2008 to October 2017 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two Groups, Group A (32 eyes) and Group B (35 eyes), with Group A using a 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided 10–0 nylon suture, and Group B using a double-armed polypropylene suture. Before operation and 1, 3, and 6 months after the operation, pupil shape, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), the rate of endothelial cell loss, and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between two Groups during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Iridodialysis was repaired with pupil shape restored in all cases. IOP was normalized in all eyes except 2 eyes (6.3%) in Group A and 3 eyes (8.6%) in Group B. Postoperative rate of endothelial cell loss was not significantly different between two Groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of complicated cataract was not significantly different in Group A (2 eyes, 6.3%) compared to Group B (2 eyes, 5.7%) (χ2 = 0.009, P = 0.658). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques for repairing iridodialysis not only were safe but also effective in improving visual function and cosmetic recovery. However, double-armed polypropylene suture might be less invasive than 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided suture.