4.3 Article

Posterior capsule opacification in pediatric eyes with and without traumatic cataract

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 41, Issue 7, Pages 1461-1464

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.034

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of visually significant posterior capsule opacification (PCO) in pediatric eyes with and without traumatic cataract. SETTING: Storm Eye Institute, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective case control study. METHODS: Eyes operated on for traumatic cataract and having in-the-bag single-piece hydrophobic intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were identified. The control group of eyes operated on for nontraumatic cataract was matched with reference to age, management of the posterior capsule, type of IOL, and follow-up duration. RESULTS: Data from 58 eyes were studied. Age at surgery was comparable between the study group and the control group (7.3 versus 7.8 years) (P = .7). The rate of PCO was statistically significantly different between the 2 groups (12/29 eyes versus 2/29 eyes) (P = .002). This difference was more marked for those with intact posterior capsules (9/12 eyes [75%] and 1/12 eyes [8%] (P = .001) compared with eyes with primary posterior capsulectomy and vitrectomy (3/17 [18%] and 1/17 [6%] (P = .6). For eyes with intact posterior capsules, the duration between cataract surgery and intervention for PCO was 4 to 15 months in the traumatic cataract group; 1 eye in the nontraumatic cataract group required intervention 20 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Eyes with traumatic cataract were more likely to develop PCO than eyes without traumatic cataract. The results also suggest that PCO develops faster in eyes with traumatic cataract. Primary posterior capsulectomy and vitrectomy should be considered for children having traumatic cataract surgery, irrespective of age at the time of surgery. (C) 2015 ASCRS and ESCRS

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available