Cargando…
Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens
To investigate the surgical outcomes of 2 different scleral fixation techniques of the new single-piece foldable acrylic Carlevale lens (Soleko) and to compare our results with previous reports of the literature. A retrospective, non-randomized comparative study involving 2 series of patients who un...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8360456/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026728 |
_version_ | 1783737745110204416 |
---|---|
author | Fiore, Tito Messina, Marco Muzi, Alessio Tosi, Gialuigi Lupidi, Marco Casini, Giamberto Marruso, Virginia Cagini, Carlo |
author_facet | Fiore, Tito Messina, Marco Muzi, Alessio Tosi, Gialuigi Lupidi, Marco Casini, Giamberto Marruso, Virginia Cagini, Carlo |
author_sort | Fiore, Tito |
collection | PubMed |
description | To investigate the surgical outcomes of 2 different scleral fixation techniques of the new single-piece foldable acrylic Carlevale lens (Soleko) and to compare our results with previous reports of the literature. A retrospective, non-randomized comparative study involving 2 series of patients who underwent 2 different scleral fixation techniques of Carlevale lens was performed. Minimum follow-up of 3 months was requested for inclusion in the study. All the patients underwent a standard ophthalmologic examination including best correct visual acuity, measurement of intraocular pressure, anterior segment, and fundus examination. In the first technique (group 1), plugs were externalized through a 23 gauge sclerotomy and placed within 2 scleral pockets. In the second technique (group 2), plugs were externalized through a 25-gauge sclerotomy and covered by 2 scleral flaps. For an estimation of the refractive prediction error, the postoperative spherical equivalent of objective refraction was calculated (IOL Master 750, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Spectral domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis HRA+OCT2, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) of anterior segment was used to check plugs positioning postoperatively. Twenty-three eyes in group 1 and 9 eyes in group 2 were included. Preoperative diagnosis was aphakia, dislocated posterior chamber intra ocular lens, dislocated lens, anisometropia, Uveitis-Glaucoma-Hyphema syndrome, perforating trauma with dislocated intra ocular lens, and open globe injury with dislocated intra ocular lens. Respectively, in groups 1 and 2, refractive spherical equivalent prediction error was –0,31 ± 0,74 D and –0,27 ± 0,80 D, and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity was 0,42 ± 0,31 logMAR and 0,47 ± 0,45 logMAR. In group 1, 1 eye developed cystoid macular edema, 1 eye vitreous haemorrhage, and 3 eyes showed plugs located outside the scleral pockets under the conjunctiva. Rupture of 1 of the 2 tips of the plug was observed in 1 patient of group 1 during the externalization. Carlevale lens is a scleral fixated intra ocular lens specifically designed for posterior chamber implantation that could be successfully managed without any significant difference between the 2 surgical techniques, and appears approachable for anterior and posterior segment surgeons. A 25-gauge sclerotomy should be preferred with the aim of a sutureless surgery regardless the technique employed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8360456 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83604562021-08-14 Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens Fiore, Tito Messina, Marco Muzi, Alessio Tosi, Gialuigi Lupidi, Marco Casini, Giamberto Marruso, Virginia Cagini, Carlo Medicine (Baltimore) 5800 To investigate the surgical outcomes of 2 different scleral fixation techniques of the new single-piece foldable acrylic Carlevale lens (Soleko) and to compare our results with previous reports of the literature. A retrospective, non-randomized comparative study involving 2 series of patients who underwent 2 different scleral fixation techniques of Carlevale lens was performed. Minimum follow-up of 3 months was requested for inclusion in the study. All the patients underwent a standard ophthalmologic examination including best correct visual acuity, measurement of intraocular pressure, anterior segment, and fundus examination. In the first technique (group 1), plugs were externalized through a 23 gauge sclerotomy and placed within 2 scleral pockets. In the second technique (group 2), plugs were externalized through a 25-gauge sclerotomy and covered by 2 scleral flaps. For an estimation of the refractive prediction error, the postoperative spherical equivalent of objective refraction was calculated (IOL Master 750, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Spectral domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis HRA+OCT2, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) of anterior segment was used to check plugs positioning postoperatively. Twenty-three eyes in group 1 and 9 eyes in group 2 were included. Preoperative diagnosis was aphakia, dislocated posterior chamber intra ocular lens, dislocated lens, anisometropia, Uveitis-Glaucoma-Hyphema syndrome, perforating trauma with dislocated intra ocular lens, and open globe injury with dislocated intra ocular lens. Respectively, in groups 1 and 2, refractive spherical equivalent prediction error was –0,31 ± 0,74 D and –0,27 ± 0,80 D, and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity was 0,42 ± 0,31 logMAR and 0,47 ± 0,45 logMAR. In group 1, 1 eye developed cystoid macular edema, 1 eye vitreous haemorrhage, and 3 eyes showed plugs located outside the scleral pockets under the conjunctiva. Rupture of 1 of the 2 tips of the plug was observed in 1 patient of group 1 during the externalization. Carlevale lens is a scleral fixated intra ocular lens specifically designed for posterior chamber implantation that could be successfully managed without any significant difference between the 2 surgical techniques, and appears approachable for anterior and posterior segment surgeons. A 25-gauge sclerotomy should be preferred with the aim of a sutureless surgery regardless the technique employed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC8360456/ /pubmed/34397876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026728 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | 5800 Fiore, Tito Messina, Marco Muzi, Alessio Tosi, Gialuigi Lupidi, Marco Casini, Giamberto Marruso, Virginia Cagini, Carlo Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title | Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title_full | Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title_fullStr | Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title_short | Comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber Carlevale lens |
title_sort | comparison of two different scleral fixation techniques of posterior chamber carlevale lens |
topic | 5800 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8360456/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34397876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026728 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fioretito comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT messinamarco comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT muzialessio comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT tosigialuigi comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT lupidimarco comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT casinigiamberto comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT marrusovirginia comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens AT caginicarlo comparisonoftwodifferentscleralfixationtechniquesofposteriorchambercarlevalelens |