Refractive outcomes for secondary sutureless posterior chamber lens implantation: sutureless scleral fixating lens Carlevale® versus retropupillary iris-claw lens Artisan®.

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1007/s00417-024-06683-8

Justine Bontemps, Olivier Loria, Lucas Sejournet, Benoit Allignet, Sandra Elbany, Frédéric Matonti, Carole Burillon, Philippe Denis, Laurent Kodjikian, Thibaud Mathis

{"title":"Refractive outcomes for secondary sutureless posterior chamber lens implantation: sutureless scleral fixating lens Carlevale® versus retropupillary iris-claw lens Artisan®.","authors":"Justine Bontemps, Olivier Loria, Lucas Sejournet, Benoit Allignet, Sandra Elbany, Frédéric Matonti, Carole Burillon, Philippe Denis, Laurent Kodjikian, Thibaud Mathis","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06683-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare refractive outcomes of the foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (Carlevale® FIL-SSF) with the iris-claw lens (Artisan®).Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent a FIL-SSF implantation or an iris-claw implantation between January 2020 and November 2022 in the ophthalmology departments of Hospices Civils de Lyon (France).Results: A total of 271 eyes from 265 patients were included: 96 eyes in the FIL-SSF group and 175 eyes in the iris-claw group. At 6 months, the mean (SD) surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly lower in the FIL-SSF group with 0.3 (1.8) diopters against 0.8 (2.1) diopters in the iris-claw group (p = 0.01). The mean (SD) refractive error was also lower for the FIL-SSF group with 0.1 (1.2) diopters versus 0.5 (1.6) diopters in the iris-claw group (p < 0.001). The mean best corrected visual acuity at 6 months was not significantly different between FIL-SSF and iris-claw lens with 0.47 (0.58) logMAR and 0.39 (0.55) logMAR, respectively (p = 0.12). However, the mean (SD) operative time was longer for FIL-SSF implantation in comparison to iris-claw implantation (59.8 (21.1) minutes versus 41.9 (24.4) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001)). The rate of postoperative complications was similar between the two techniques.Conclusion: This study shows that FIL-SSF achieves better refractive results than iris-claw lens, with a similar rate of postoperative complications. As a relatively new implantation technique, there is a learning curve required to reduce operating time.Key messages: What is known? Multiple surgical options for correcting aphakia in the absence of capsular support can be used. Currently, foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (FIL-SSF, Carlevale®) and iris-claw (Artisan®) implants are the two preferred options, but there is no consensus on the best technique to adopt. What is new? We showed that FIL-SSF has a significantly lower surgically induced astigmatism compared to the iris-claw implant. Similar rate of postoperative complications was found between these two techniques. Future studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to ascertain its tolerance.","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06683-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare refractive outcomes of the foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (Carlevale® FIL-SSF) with the iris-claw lens (Artisan®).

Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent a FIL-SSF implantation or an iris-claw implantation between January 2020 and November 2022 in the ophthalmology departments of Hospices Civils de Lyon (France).

Results: A total of 271 eyes from 265 patients were included: 96 eyes in the FIL-SSF group and 175 eyes in the iris-claw group. At 6 months, the mean (SD) surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly lower in the FIL-SSF group with 0.3 (1.8) diopters against 0.8 (2.1) diopters in the iris-claw group (p = 0.01). The mean (SD) refractive error was also lower for the FIL-SSF group with 0.1 (1.2) diopters versus 0.5 (1.6) diopters in the iris-claw group (p < 0.001). The mean best corrected visual acuity at 6 months was not significantly different between FIL-SSF and iris-claw lens with 0.47 (0.58) logMAR and 0.39 (0.55) logMAR, respectively (p = 0.12). However, the mean (SD) operative time was longer for FIL-SSF implantation in comparison to iris-claw implantation (59.8 (21.1) minutes versus 41.9 (24.4) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001)). The rate of postoperative complications was similar between the two techniques.

Conclusion: This study shows that FIL-SSF achieves better refractive results than iris-claw lens, with a similar rate of postoperative complications. As a relatively new implantation technique, there is a learning curve required to reduce operating time.

Key messages: What is known? Multiple surgical options for correcting aphakia in the absence of capsular support can be used. Currently, foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (FIL-SSF, Carlevale®) and iris-claw (Artisan®) implants are the two preferred options, but there is no consensus on the best technique to adopt. What is new? We showed that FIL-SSF has a significantly lower surgically induced astigmatism compared to the iris-claw implant. Similar rate of postoperative complications was found between these two techniques. Future studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to ascertain its tolerance.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

二次无缝线后房晶状体植入术的屈光疗效：无缝线巩膜固定晶状体 Carlevale® 与瞳孔后虹膜爪晶状体 Artisan®。

目的：比较可折叠眼内透镜无缝线巩膜固定无缝线（Carlevale® FIL-SSF）与虹膜爪透镜（Artisan®）的屈光效果：这项回顾性研究纳入了2020年1月至2022年11月期间在法国里昂安宁医院眼科接受FIL-SSF植入术或虹膜爪植入术的连续患者：共纳入265名患者的271只眼睛：结果：共纳入 265 名患者的 271 只眼睛：FIL-SSF 组 96 只，虹膜爪组 175 只。6 个月时，FIL-SSF 组的平均（标清）手术诱导散光（SIA）明显低于虹膜爪组（P = 0.01），前者为 0.3 (1.8) 斜度，后者为 0.8 (2.1) 斜度。FIL-SSF 组的平均（标清）屈光度数也较低，为 0.1 (1.2) 斜度，而虹膜爪组为 0.5 (1.6) 斜度（p 结论：FIL-SSF 能有效降低屈光不正的发生率：本研究表明，FIL-SSF 比虹膜爪晶状体获得更好的屈光效果，术后并发症发生率相似。作为一种相对较新的植入技术，需要一个学习曲线来缩短手术时间：已知信息在没有晶体囊支持的情况下，有多种手术方案可用于矫正无晶体眼。目前，可折叠眼内晶状体无缝线巩膜固定无缝线（FIL-SSF，Carlevale®）和虹膜爪（Artisan®）植入体是两种首选方案，但对于采用哪种技术最好还没有达成共识。新技术是什么？我们的研究表明，FIL-SSF 与虹膜爪植入体相比，手术引起的散光明显更低。两种技术的术后并发症发生率相似。今后需要进行更长时间的随访研究，以确定其耐受性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

7.40%

发文量

398

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.