A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical outcome and endothelial loss following prepupillary and retropupillary implantation of iris claw intraocular lenses. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated the effectiveness of two implantation methods (prepupillary and retropupillary) for iris claw intraocular lenses in patients without capsular support during cataract surgery.
  • A review of 26 patients showed significant improvement in visual acuity for both methods, but with slightly higher complication rates in the prepupillary group.
  • Overall, both techniques resulted in similar visual outcomes and endothelial cell loss, but retropupillary implantation had a trend towards fewer complications.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Iris claw intraocular lenses (IOLs) were successfully used for the management of aphakia in patients that lack capsular support. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of prepupillary and retropupillary implantation of these IOLs.

Methods: The files of the 26 patients that had an iris claw IOL implantation between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Detailed ophthalmological examination findings including corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), intraocular pressure, endothelial cell counts, slit lamp and dilated fundus examination findings were specifically tabulated. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were also specifically recorded.

Results: There were 18 patients in the prepupillary implantation group and eight patients in the retropupillary implantation group. Age and gender distribution were similar between the groups. CDVA significantly increased in prepupillary and retropupillary implantation groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.012, respectively). Median endothelial cell loss was 6.7% in prepupillary group and 7.2% in retropupillary group. The only intraoperative complication was iridodialysis (n = 1). Postoperative complications included retinal detachment (n = 1), cystoid macular edema (n = 2) and IOL tilt (n = 1). All of these complications occurred in the prepupillary implantation group.

Conclusion: Prepupillary and retropupillary implantation of iris claw IOLs resulted with similar visual gain and endothelial loss rates in a follow-up time of 6 months. There was an insignificant trend toward a reduced complication rate following retropupillary implantation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01965-0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

retropupillary implantation
24
prepupillary retropupillary
16
iris claw
16
implantation
9
clinical outcome
8
endothelial loss
8
implantation iris
8
claw intraocular
8
intraocular lenses
8
examination findings
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!