rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:1301-1306 doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.148726
  • Original Article
  • Clinical science

Intraocular architecture of secondary implanted anterior chamber iris-claw lenses in aphakic eyes evaluated with anterior segment optical coherence tomography

  1. M J Koss1,
  2. T Kohnen1,2
  1. 1
    Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  2. 2
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor T Kohnen, Goethe-University, Department of Ophthalmology, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Kohnen{at}em.uni-frankfurt.de
  • Accepted 15 February 2009
  • Published Online First 4 May 2009

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the intraocular stability and safety of secondary iris-claw intraocular lenses (IOLs) in aphakic patients.

Methods: Eighteen eyes of 16 patients received iris-claw IOLs to correct for aphakia. Primary outcome measurements included visual acuity (6 m Snellen charts), central endothelium cell count (ECC) and intraocular position of the IOL assessed with anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Results: Sixteen patients (mean age 66 (range 16–84) years; axial length 24.44 mm) were re-examined 22 months postoperatively (range 12–38 months). Preoperative decimal best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.51, intraocular pressure (IOP) 15.3 mmHg and central ECC 1816 per mm2. Postoperative BCVA was 0.68, IOP 13.1 mmHg and central ECC 1626 per mm2 (difference over time 176 per mm2 = 10.5%, p>0.05). The anterior chamber depth was 4 mm for the eyes with axial length <24 mm, and 4.34 mm for those ≥24 mm.

Conclusion: Secondary anterior iris-claw IOLs appears to be a safe choice to correct aphakia with no significant intermediate postoperative central endothelium cell loss, especially in eyes with axial length ≥24 mm, as distances from the IOL to the central and peripheral cornea proved to be consistent.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None declared. None of the authors have a financial or proprietary interest in any of the intraocular lenses, instrumentation or devices used in this study.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • See Editorial, p 1273

  • Patient consent Obtained.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. bjo.2008.148726v1
    2. 93/10/1301 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.