Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Endothelial keratoplasty with anterior chamber intraocular lens versus secondary posterior chamber intraocular lens
  1. Jyh Haur Woo1,2,3,4,
  2. Anshu Arundhati1,2,3,4,
  3. Soon-Phaik Chee1,2,3,4,
  4. Weihan Tong1,
  5. Lim Li1,2,3,4,
  6. Seng-Ei Ti1,2,3,4,
  7. Hla M Htoon2,3,4,
  8. Jessica Qian Hui Choo1,
  9. Donald Tan1,2,3,4,
  10. Jodhbir S Mehta1,2,3,4
  1. 1 Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore
  2. 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  3. 3 Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore
  4. 4 Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Jodhbir S Mehta, Singapore National Eye Centre, 11 Third Hospital Avenue, Singapore 168751, Singapore;jodmehta{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Aim To describe the long-term outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with an anterior chamber intraocular lens (ACIOL) compared to secondary posterior chamber (PC) IOL.

Methods This was a retrospective comparative cohort study. The clinical data of 82 eyes from 82 consecutive patients with pseudophakic (PBK) or aphakic bullous keratopathy (ABK) who either underwent DSAEK with retained or secondary ACIOL (n=23) or DSAEK with IOL exchange and/or secondary PCIOL (retropupillary iris-claw IOL, n=25; intrascleral-fixated IOL, n=29; or sulcus IOL, n=5) were analysed. The main outcome measures were graft survival and complications up to 5 years.

Results The graft survival in the secondary PCIOL group was superior than the ACIOL group over 5 years (year 1, 100.0% vs 100.0%; year 3, 94.7% vs 75.0%; year 5, 91.1% vs 60.6%, p=0.022). The presence of an ACIOL was a significant risk factor associated with graft failure (HR, 4.801; 95% CI, 1.406 to 16.396, p=0.012) compared to a secondary PCIOL. There was no significant difference in the rate of graft detachment and elevated intraocular pressure between the groups. There were five cases (9.3%) of IOL subluxation or dislocation in the retropupillary iris-claw and intrascleral-fixated IOL groups.

Conclusions Eyes that underwent DSAEK with ACIOL in situ had poorer long-term graft survival compared with those with secondary PCIOL. Intraocular lens exchange was not associated with a higher complication rate. In ABK or PBK eyes with ACIOL, we recommend performing IOL exchange and/or secondary PCIOL implantation combined with endothelial keratoplasty.

  • Cornea
  • Treatment Surgery
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors JHW contributed to the conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the work, revising it critically for important intellectual content. He was also involved in the final approval of the version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. AA, S-PC, LL, S-ET, DT, JM contributed to the conception and design of the work, interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual content. They were also involved in the final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. WT contributed to the conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual content. He was also involved in the final approval of the version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. HMH contributed to the design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual content. He was also involved in the final approval of the version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. JQHC contributed to the acquisition and interpretation of data, revising the work critically for important intellectual content. She was also involved in the final approval of the version to be published and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests DT and JM, inventors of the EndoGlide, have financial interests in the device (AngioTech, Reading, Pennsylvania, USA/Network Medical Products, North Yorkshire, UK).

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

  • Data availability statement No data are available.

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.