A retrospective analysis of the first Indian experience on Artisan phakic intraocular lens.

Maxivision Eye Hospital, Alladin Mansion, Begumpet, Hyderabad -500 016, India.
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 1.02). 01/2007; 54(4):251-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the efficacy, safety, predictability and stability of implanting a polymethylmethacrylate phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) in high myopia.
A retrospective analysis of the data of patients who underwent Artisan phakic IOL implantation between 2002 and 2003 with a follow-up of at least 24 months.
An Artisan myopia lens was implanted in 60 eyes of 36 patients with preoperative myopia ranging from -5.0 to -24.0 D. Mean patient age was 22.6 years. Mean spherical equivalent of manifest refraction stabilized by the first postoperative week. At three months follow-up, 54 eyes (90%) had a postoperative refraction within +/- 1D emmetropia and 45 eyes (75%) had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Seven eyes (11.6%) had loss of one Snellen line and none had loss of two Snellen lines or more at three months. The mean endothelial cell loss was 3.8% at three months, 5.2% at six months, 5.25% at 12 months and 6.38% at two years, which was not significant. Postoperative complications included anterior chamber reaction in two eyes (3.3%), rise in intraocular pressure in six eyes (10%) and dislocation of PIOL in two eyes (3.3%).
Implantation of Artisan myopia lens to correct high myopia resulted in a stable and fairly predictable refractive outcome with few complications. Significant endothelial damage was not detected in two years of follow-up.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: At a time when some of the limitations of photoablation have been defined, such as worry concerning secondary ectasia, a renewed interest in phakic implantation has arisen. This is driven by the goal of avoiding correcting high ametropia with LASIK and is based on the development of soft foldable biomaterials. When all phakic IOLs are in front of the natural lens, two varieties of lenses can be distinguished, depending on whether it is located in the anterior or posterior chamber. The various models available in 2006 and those under current evaluation are reviewed. We do not report details of clinical studies that vary in cohort size and follow-up. The advantages and limitations are discussed for each type of phakic IOL. Adequate although not exclusive indications are deduced. There is no phakic lens that has proved to be superior to the others in terms of safety. All have the ability to provide a visual benefit with a gain in best corrected visual acuity. The difference is based on anatomical effects, requiring long-term follow-up in the evaluation of angles, lens, iris, and endothelium.
    Journal francais d'ophtalmologie 06/2007; 30(5):539-51. · 0.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the evidential basis of current practice in refractive lens exchange (RLE) vs. phakic intraocular lens (pIOL). Visual outcomes after pIOLs are better than RLE. With RLE, there still remain risks of retinal detachment, cystoid macular oedema, glare, halos and posterior capsule opacification. With pIOLs, risks include pigment dispersion, cataract formation, glaucoma and inflammation. The decision to choose between either is broadly based on age and type of refractive error, and the choice follows thorough evaluation and counselling taking into consideration patient's needs and expectations. With advancing technology, newer IOL models for RLE and phakic correction are becoming available. pIOLs provide better visual outcomes for distance correction and currently do not provide near-vision correction possible with RLE.
    Current opinion in ophthalmology 11/2011; 23(1):54-61. · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many factors are involved in choosing which approach is best for each patient. By Mayank a. nanavaty, DO, MRCS(ED), FRCOphth; and Sheraz M. Daya, MD, FACp, FACS, FRCS(ED), FRCOphth decision-Making: rLe versus phakic ioLs Refractive lens exchange (RLE) and phakic IOL implantation are alternative options to laser ablative refractive surgery. As intraocular procedures, both carry the very low but real risk of endophthalmitis. This risk has been reduced considerably by the incorporation of intraocular cefuroxime into current practice in Europe. 1 Although rare, potential complications including retinal detachment and cystoid macular edema must be considered and discussed with a patient in detail before surgery. UnderStanding RLE and Phakic iOLS RLE is safe and effective for the correction of moderate to severe myopia 2-7 and hyperopia. 8-13 Monofocal, toric, multifo-cal, and accommodating IOLs are available options that can be chosen based on patient needs and expectations. The safety of the procedure has been enhanced by the introduction of microincision cataract surgery (MICS) and of lenses that can be inserted through 1.8-mm incisions. Because RLE causes loss of accommodation, the procedure should be avoided if a patient's natural lens is still functional. 14-18 Several available multifocal IOLs provide patients with increased depth of focus including near, intermediate, and distance vision and make RLE an attractive option for both patient and surgeon. The primary advantages of phakic IOLs are rapid visual recovery, reversibility, a broader range of treatable ametropia, high predictability rates, stability, and preservation of accommodation. 19-27