Article

Long-term endothelial changes in phakic eyes with posterior chamber intraocular lenses

University of Vienna, Wien, Vienna, Austria
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.55). 10/2002; 28(9):1589-93. DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01210-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the long-term endothelial cell changes in phakic eyes after implantation of a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens to correct high ametropia.
Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thirty-four eyes of 21 patients having implantation of an implantable contact lens (ICL, Staar Surgical) for high myopia or hyperopia were prospectively examined. The minimum follow-up was 2 to 4 years. Preoperative and serial postoperative specular microscopy (Noncon Robo SP 8000, Konan) was performed to evaluate the long-term endothelial cell changes.
The mean preoperative endothelial cell density was 2854 cells/mm(2). The mean endothelial cell loss from preoperatively was 1.8% at 3 months, 4.2% at 6 months, 5.5% at 12 months, 7.9% at 2 years (n = 34), 12.9% at 3 years (n = 13), and 12.3% at 4 years (n = 11). All other endothelial cell characteristics remained stable during the 4-year follow-up.
Continuous endothelial cell loss was observed after ICL implantation during a 4-year follow-up. There was rapid cell loss until 1 year postoperatively, after which the rate of loss was no longer statistically significant. The percentage of hexagonal cells (polymorphism) and the coefficient of variation (polymegethism) remained stable during the 4-year follow-up.

1 Follower
 · 
136 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Die optische Qualität nach Korrektur höherer Fehlsichtigkeiten mittels phaker Intraokularlinsen (PIOL) ist im Vergleich zu korneal-ablativen Verfahren potenziell besser, da die normale prolate korneale Asphärizität bei akzeptabler effektiver optischer Zone erhalten bleibt. Verbesserungen des Materials und Designs phaker IOL, der Implantationsinstrumente sowie eine bessere Kenntnis der Interaktion der PIOL mit den umliegenden anatomischen Strukturen führten in den letzten Jahren zu einer gestiegenen Sicherheit und Akzeptanz. Klinische Studien zu PIOL zeigten eine gute Vorhersagbarkeit, Stabilität und Effektivität. Die Sicherheit dieser Implantate über einen längeren Zeitraum (>5 Jahre) hingegen wurde bislang nicht belegt, auch wenn die Implantation PIOL bereits jetzt von vielen Ophthalmochirurgen unter diversen Umständen als das refraktiv-chirurgische Verfahren der Wahl angesehen wird. In dieser Übersicht wird auf die Vor- und Nachteile der verschiedenen aktuellen PIOL-Typen sowie deren Komplikationen eingegangen. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass Verfeinerungen der Bildgebung zu einer genaueren PIOL-Größenbestimmung (besonders in Hinblick auf die ICL) führen werden. Eine recht präzise Vorhersage der effektiven postoperativen Linsenposition mit geringer Abweichung von der Zielrefraktion wäre somit möglich. Die Patienten sollten wissen, dass die Implantation einer phaken Intraokularlinse die Fehlsichtigkeit weitestgehend ausgleicht, aber sowohl die zugrunde liegende Pathologie als auch die Änderungen durch die Operation zu ernsten Komplikationen führen können.
    Der Ophthalmologe 01/2004; 101(3). · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the visual outcomes and complications of three different types of phakic intraocular lenses (PIOLs), for correction of moderate to high myopia. We reviewed 112 myopic eyes undergoing PIOL implantation using Artisan (40 eyes), Artiflex (36 eyes), and implantable collamer lens (ICL, 36 eyes). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), pachymetry, corneal endothelial cell (CEC) loss, and higher order aberrations (HOA) were compared. Mean follow-up period was 30 ± 11 months. Preoperatively, spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error was -11.6 ± 3.7, -9.59 ± 1.97, and -12.3 ± 4.8 D in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively. SE was comparable among the study groups at final follow-up (P = 0.237). Mean astigmatic reduction was 0.31 ± 0.72, 0.45 ± 0.62, and 0.0 ± 0.57 in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.007). Emmetropia (±1 D) was achieved in 60%, 91.7% and 77.8% of eyes in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively, the difference was significant between the Artisan and Artiflex groups (P = 0.017). BCVA improvement more than one line occurred in 25%, 19.4% and 38.9% of eyes (P = 0.158); pachymetric changes were minimal with no difference among the three groups (P = 0.754), and mean CEC loss was 10 ± 9%, 9 ± 6% and 9 ± 10% in the Artisan, Artiflex and ICL groups, respectively (P = 0.694). HOAs (P = 0.039), vertical trefoil (P = 0.032) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) were higher with Artisan group as compared to ICL. Total aberrations (P = 0.028) and spherical aberration (P = 0.001) was also higher with Artisan group as compared to Artiflex. Visual and refractive outcomes were comparable with Artisan, Artiflex and ICL. In terms of HOAs and quality of vision, ICL and Artiflex seem to be better choices in highly myopic eyes.
    Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 10/2014; 9(4):427. DOI:10.4103/2008-322X.150805
  • Source