Article Text

PDF
Original article
Safety profile of primary intraocular lens implantation in children below 2 years of age
  1. Amit Gupta,
  2. Ramesh Kekunnaya,
  3. Muralidhar Ramappa,
  4. Pravin K Vaddavalli
  1. L V Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ramesh Kekunnaya, Jasti V Ramanamma Children's Eye Care Center, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, L V Prasad Eye Institute, L V Prasad Marg, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034, India; drrk123{at}gmail.com, rameshak{at}lvpei.org

Aim To study the safety profile of primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in children below 2 years of age

Methods Retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive and interventional clinical case series of all patients who underwent surgery between January 2006 and December 2007.

Results The data were collected for 120 eyes of 80 children with congenital/developmental cataract with a mean follow-up of 8.85±7.73 months (median 6, range 3–40). The age ranged from 1 to 23 months (mean 11.21±5.90 months, median 10 months). 31 eyes were operated on before the age of 6 months, and 89 were operated on after 6 months of age. The axial length of children ranged from 16.27 mm to 25.65 mm (mean 19.84±1.71, median 19.65). The IOL power implanted in these children ranged from 11 D to 30 D (mean 24.51±4.06 D, median 25.00). 30 eyes were implanted with rigid polymethylmethacrylate lenses, and the remaining 90 received acrylic hydrophobic foldable lenses. 8 eyes (6.7%) developed opacification of the visual axis, decentration of IOL was noticed in 2 (1.7%), increased anterior chamber inflammation was observed in five eyes (4.2%) in the early postoperative period, pigment dispersion on IOL was seen in four eyes (3.3%), and posterior synechiae were noticed in five eyes (4.2%). None of the children developed glaucoma; nor were there any endophthalmitis and retinal detachment at the last follow-up. There was no difference in terms of complications in children younger than 6 months and older than 6 months.

Conclusion The results suggest that implantation of IOL in children below 2 years of age is safe and can be considered as a viable option for their visual rehabilitation.

  • Paediatric cataract
  • intraocular lens (IOL)
  • paediatric cataract surgery for children below two years of age
  • lens and zonules
  • treatment surgery
  • child health (paediatrics)

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Aim To study the safety profile of primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in children below 2 years of age

Methods Retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive and interventional clinical case series of all patients who underwent surgery between January 2006 and December 2007.

Results The data were collected for 120 eyes of 80 children with congenital/developmental cataract with a mean follow-up of 8.85±7.73 months (median 6, range 3–40). The age ranged from 1 to 23 months (mean 11.21±5.90 months, median 10 months). 31 eyes were operated on before the age of 6 months, and 89 were operated on after 6 months of age. The axial length of children ranged from 16.27 mm to 25.65 mm (mean 19.84±1.71, median 19.65). The IOL power implanted in these children ranged from 11 D to 30 D (mean 24.51±4.06 D, median 25.00). 30 eyes were implanted with rigid polymethylmethacrylate lenses, and the remaining 90 received acrylic hydrophobic foldable lenses. 8 eyes (6.7%) developed opacification of the visual axis, decentration of IOL was noticed in 2 (1.7%), increased anterior chamber inflammation was observed in five eyes (4.2%) in the early postoperative period, pigment dispersion on IOL was seen in four eyes (3.3%), and posterior synechiae were noticed in five eyes (4.2%). None of the children developed glaucoma; nor were there any endophthalmitis and retinal detachment at the last follow-up. There was no difference in terms of complications in children younger than 6 months and older than 6 months.

Conclusion The results suggest that implantation of IOL in children below 2 years of age is safe and can be considered as a viable option for their visual rehabilitation.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Funding Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Ethics Committee of L V Prasad Eye Institute.

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

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh