Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Paediatric IOL implantation and postoperative refractive state: what role do study methodology and surgical technique play?
  1. Ken K Nischal1,2,3,
  2. Lola Solebo3,
  3. Isabelle Russell-Eggitt1,3
  1. 1Clinical and Academic Department of Ophthalmology, Great Ormond St Hospital for Children, London, UK
  2. 2Developmental Biology Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK
  3. 3Ulverscroft Vision Research Group, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ken K Nischal, Clinical and Academic Department of Ophthalmology, Great Ormond St Hospital for Children, London WC1N 3JH, UK; kkn{at}

Statistics from

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.

Evolution of surgical techniques has made paediatric primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation more popular.1 As the comfort level of implanting younger children increases, postoperative target refraction accuracy and emmetropisation of refractive error have become important management problems.

The normal neonatal eye is hyperopic, and over the first 18 months of life, axial elongation, lenticular change and corneal flattening move the focussing system towards emmetropia2 3 with axial elongation playing the primary role.4 While being sensitive to genetic factors,5 the globe axial elongation and resultant myopic shift seen in the first 2 years of life is thought to be an active process—emmetropisation—influenced by visual stimulus within a sensitive period. Evidence that emmetropisation is an active light dependent process, with the sensory component most likely in the retinal amacrine cells, comes from a large volume of animal model work.6–8 It is speculated that the effector component is controlled by the ocular matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) which orchestrate posterior segment remodelling.8 The primary site of this motor arm is unclear and may be located at the posterior pole,9 or the area around the ciliary body.10 11

As with the normally developing eye, the primary effector of the myopic shift seen in pseudophakic children is globe axial elongation.12–14 However, the myopic shift is large,12 15 shows considerable variance12–21 (table 1) and is devoid of consistent correlation with either a child's preoperative axial length or the implanted IOL power.13 15 20 Age is the significant influencing factor, with younger children exhibiting larger and more unpredictable myopic shifts.12 15 18 20

View this table:
Table 1

Reports on the myopic shift following intraocular lens implantation in infancy

In this month's issue, Sminia et al (see page 547) compare the axial eye length growth of the two fellow eyes within one …

View Full Text


  • Linked articles 160192.

  • Funding This work was undertaken at UCL Institute of Child Health/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, which received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health/NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. LS is funded by Ulverscroft Vision Research Group.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles