RESEARCH ARTICLE
Long Term Clinical and Visual Outcomes of Retrofixated Iris Claw Lenses Implantation in Complicated Cases
Sri Ganesh, Sheetal Brar, Kirti Relekar*
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2016Volume: 10
First Page: 111
Last Page: 118
Publisher ID: TOOPHTJ-10-111
DOI: 10.2174/1874364101610010111
Article History:
Received Date: 1/12/2015Revision Received Date: 30/12/2015
Acceptance Date: 19/1/2016
Electronic publication date: 29/04/2016
Collection year: 2016
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Abstract
Aims:
To evaluate the visual outcomes and complications after implantation of retrofixated iris claw (RFIC) lens in various challenging situations.
Settings and Design:
Retrospective, single centre, 8 year clinical audit.
Materials and Methods:
A retrospective analysis of cases who underwent RFIC lens implantation alone (group 1) or in combination with vitreoretinal (VR), corneal or glaucoma procedures (group 2) was performed. The main outcomes evaluated were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative complications. The mean follow up was 13.09±6.8 (range 6-24) months.
Results:
The study involved 100 eyes of 83 patients with mean age of 51.1±25.4 years. Group 1 included 59 eyes and group 2 had 41 eyes. In group 1, the mean CDVA improved from 0.86±0.81 to 0.38±0.51 LogMAR (p<0.001) with 72.8% eyes having gain in lines (≥ 2 lines) of CDVA with safety index of 1.73. The mean CDVA in group 2 improved from 0.71±0.65 to 0.38±0.34 LogMAR (p=0.003) with 65.8% eyes having gain in lines (≥ 2 lines) of CDVA with a safety index of 1.54. Group 2 showed a higher complication rate of 36.59% compared to group 1 (20.34%). Significant complications noted were secondary glaucoma (8%), disenclavation of haptic (4%), subluxation of RFIC lens (1%).
Conclusion:
The visual outcome with RFIC lenses when combined with other intraocular procedures is mainly affected by the complexity of co-existing pathologies .The complications are more related to the combined procedures performed rather than RFIC lens implantation alone. This may still be acceptable when complication profile of other intraocular lenses is evaluated in similar challenging situations.
