Cargando…
Austausch von Aniridie-IOL gegen individuelle Iris-IOL-Implantate
BACKGROUND: Three groups of iris prostheses can be distinguished for the surgical treatment of iris defects: (1) segmental iris implants, (2) combined iris diaphragm intraocular lenses (IOL) and (3) pure iris implants. Most iris reconstructions are accompanied by aphakia correction with secondary IO...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Medizin
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8813724/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34236489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00347-021-01447-9 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Three groups of iris prostheses can be distinguished for the surgical treatment of iris defects: (1) segmental iris implants, (2) combined iris diaphragm intraocular lenses (IOL) and (3) pure iris implants. Most iris reconstructions are accompanied by aphakia correction with secondary IOL implantation. Although the primary goal is to create a pupil and to improve glare perception, contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, the esthetic result is also a relevant component. OBJECTIVE: Functional and esthetic results after replacement of an aniridia IOL implant with a custom-made artificial iris with IOL. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study with seven eyes from seven patients, an iris diaphragm IOL (Morcher GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany) was exchanged for medical reasons (subluxation) against a custom-made artificial iris made of silicone (ArtificialIris, HumanOptics, Erlangen, Germany) in combination with a sutured IOL. The follow-up period was at least 3 months. Best corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell count (ECC), complications, glare perception as well as esthetic outcome and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: The BCVA and ECC showed no statistically significant change between the preoperative and postoperative values (p > 0.05). There was a decentration of the iris IOL implant of 0.27 ± 0.19 mm three months postoperatively. On a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 1 to 10 (1 = not satisfied at all, 10 = extremely satisfied), satisfaction with the overall result was rated 8.6 ± 2.5. Subjective glare perception improved to 5.6 ± 3.5 and subjective esthetic impairment improved to 2.4 ± 2.0 on the VAS (1 = none, 10 = extremely strong). Postoperative complications included transient intraocular hypotonia in two eyes, intraocular pressure increase in two eyes, retinal detachment and transient vitreous hemorrhage in one eye each. Of the seven patients six would repeat the procedure. CONCLUSION: Compared to a rigid aniridia IOL implant, replacement with a custom-made artificial iris in combination with an IOL provides not only a good functional result but simultaneously also an esthetically pleasing result. |
---|