Rozaliya Hristova, Denitsa Cholakova, Alexander Oscar, Bogumil Wowra, Dimitar Dzhelebov, Yani Zdravkov
{"title":"Retropupillary Iris-fixated versus Sutured Scleral-fixated Intraocular Lenses.","authors":"Rozaliya Hristova, Denitsa Cholakova, Alexander Oscar, Bogumil Wowra, Dimitar Dzhelebov, Yani Zdravkov","doi":"10.22336/rjo.2024.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To compare the anatomical and functional results and patient satisfaction following retropupillary implantation of Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens (rAAIF) and sutured scleral fixated intraocular lens (SFIOL). <b>Subjects and methods:</b> We presented a prospective double-arm non-blinded study. Forty-one eyes with acquired aphakia, no age-related macular degeneration, no previous keratoplasty, no combined procedures, no AC reaction (cells, fibrin), normal intraocular pressure, no history of endothelial corneal dystrophy in relatives or fellow eye were included. Indications, complications, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and patient satisfaction score were assessed. <b>Results:</b> Retropupillary AAIF was implanted in 21 (51.22%) eyes and SFIOL in 20 (48.78%) eyes. The most common indication was complicated cataract surgery in 18 cases (43.90%), followed by trauma in 16 (39.02%), and spontaneous dislocation in 7 (17.07%). No difference between rAAIF and SFIOL in terms of sex, laterality (χ=0.13, <i>p</i>=0.72), indications (χ=0.78, <i>p</i>=0.68), previous ocular history, and comorbidities was observed. The complications and the visual outcomes at 6 months postoperatively were similar between the two groups (<i>p</i>=0.95 and <i>p</i>=0.321, respectively). The ECD loss in the two groups was also similar (<i>p</i>=0.89). The patient satisfaction score was 58.67±8.80 in the rAAIF and 56.69±11.50 in the SFIOL group, which was statistically similar (<i>p</i>=0.764). <b>Conclusion:</b> Retropupillary AAIF and SFIOL showed similar results concerning visual acuity, endothelial cell loss, and patient satisfaction. Careful preoperative individual assessment is required to have optimal results with either technique. <b>Abbreviations:</b> AAIF = Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens, rAAIF = retropupillary Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens, CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity, ECD = endothelial cell density, IOL = intraocular lens, SD = standard deviation, SFIOL = scleral fixated intraocular lens.</p>","PeriodicalId":94355,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","volume":"68 1","pages":"13-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11007560/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2024.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To compare the anatomical and functional results and patient satisfaction following retropupillary implantation of Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens (rAAIF) and sutured scleral fixated intraocular lens (SFIOL). Subjects and methods: We presented a prospective double-arm non-blinded study. Forty-one eyes with acquired aphakia, no age-related macular degeneration, no previous keratoplasty, no combined procedures, no AC reaction (cells, fibrin), normal intraocular pressure, no history of endothelial corneal dystrophy in relatives or fellow eye were included. Indications, complications, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and patient satisfaction score were assessed. Results: Retropupillary AAIF was implanted in 21 (51.22%) eyes and SFIOL in 20 (48.78%) eyes. The most common indication was complicated cataract surgery in 18 cases (43.90%), followed by trauma in 16 (39.02%), and spontaneous dislocation in 7 (17.07%). No difference between rAAIF and SFIOL in terms of sex, laterality (χ=0.13, p=0.72), indications (χ=0.78, p=0.68), previous ocular history, and comorbidities was observed. The complications and the visual outcomes at 6 months postoperatively were similar between the two groups (p=0.95 and p=0.321, respectively). The ECD loss in the two groups was also similar (p=0.89). The patient satisfaction score was 58.67±8.80 in the rAAIF and 56.69±11.50 in the SFIOL group, which was statistically similar (p=0.764). Conclusion: Retropupillary AAIF and SFIOL showed similar results concerning visual acuity, endothelial cell loss, and patient satisfaction. Careful preoperative individual assessment is required to have optimal results with either technique. Abbreviations: AAIF = Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens, rAAIF = retropupillary Artisan Aphakia iris-fixated intraocular lens, CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity, ECD = endothelial cell density, IOL = intraocular lens, SD = standard deviation, SFIOL = scleral fixated intraocular lens.