4.6 Article

Long-term outcome of scleral-fixated intraocular lens implantation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 97, 期 10, 页码 1308-1311

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303625

关键词

Cornea; Lens and zonules

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Implantation of a scleral-fixated intraocular lens (SFIOL) for the surgical management of aphakia in the absence of capsular support is a safe procedure with a low risk of complications in the early postoperative period. However, data on long-term functional outcome are limited. The purpose of this study is to assess the long-term outcome and complication profile of SFIOL implantation in a cohort of Chinese patients. Methods All patients who had undergone primary or secondary SFIOL implantation between 1997 and 2008 were retrospectively reviewed for visual outcomes and complications. Patients' demographic data and information on baseline preoperative visual acuity, indication for surgery, postoperative complications, latest postoperative visual acuity and indication for any subsequent surgical procedures were collected and analysed. Results 104 eyes of 99 patients (51 males and 48 females) were identified. Mean age at surgery was 67.113years (range 32-88years), with a mean follow-up of 73.4 +/- 43months (range 12-180months). 72% of patients had unchanged or improved final postoperative visual acuity. 25 of 104 eyes (24.0%) had postoperative complications, with suture-related complications being the most common. 13 eyes (12.5%) required further procedures for postoperative complications. Suture breakage leading to lens subluxation occurred in two eyes (1.9%). Conclusions SFIOL implantation is valuable for the management of aphakia in the absence of capsular support, and our visual outcomes and complication rates are comparable to other case series. The long-term outcomes and safety profile are favourable, but potential long-term suture-related problems should be discussed with the patients before surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据