- •Dedication
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgements
- •Contributors
- •Contents
- •1. Minimally Invasive Oculoplastic Surgery
- •1.1 General Points
- •1.2 Lower Lid Entropion
- •1.2.1 Introduction
- •1.2.2 Lower Lid Entropion Sutures
- •1.2.3 Lower Lid Entropion Botulinum Toxin
- •1.3 Lower Lid Ectropion
- •1.3.1 Introduction
- •1.3.2 The Royce Johnson Suture
- •1.3.3 The Pillar Tarsorrhaphy
- •1.4 Distichiasis
- •1.4.1 Introduction
- •1.4.2 Direct Excision of Lashes
- •1.5 Ptosis
- •1.5.1 Introduction
- •1.5.3 Anterior Approach – One Stitch Aponeurosis Repair
- •1.5.4 Supramid Brow Suspension
- •1.6 Lid Retraction
- •1.6.1 Introduction
- •1.6.2 Koornneef Blepharotomy
- •1.6.3 Botulinum Toxin
- •1.7 Lid Tumours
- •1.7.1 Mohs’ Micrographic Surgery
- •1.7.2 Lamella Sparing Tumour Excision
- •References
- •2. Minimally Invasive Conjunctival Surgery
- •2.1 Conjunctival Surgery
- •2.2 Conjunctivochalasis
- •2.2.1 Background of the Disease
- •2.2.2 Indication for Surgery
- •2.2.3 Basic Concept of Surgery
- •2.2.4 Surgical Procedure
- •2.2.5 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •2.3 Pterygium
- •2.3.1 Background of the Disease and the Concept of Minimally Invasive Surgery
- •2.3.2 Indication for Surgery
- •2.3.3 Basic Concept of Surgery
- •2.3.4 Surgical Procedures
- •2.3.5 A Biologic Adhesive for Sutureless Pterygium Surgery
- •2.3.6 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •2.4 Limbal and Conjuntival Dermoids
- •2.4.1 Background of the Disease
- •2.4.2 Basic Concept of Surgery
- •2.4.3 Surgical Procedure
- •2.4.4 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •2.5 Strabismus Surgery
- •2.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •3. Minimally Invasive Lacrimal Surgery
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.1.1 Causes of Stenoses of the Lacrimal Drainage System
- •3.1.3 General Remarks Regarding Surgical Management
- •3.2 Endonasal Endoscopic (Microscopic) Dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR)
- •3.2.1 Indication for EDCR
- •3.2.2 Surgical Technique
- •3.2.3 Silicone Stenting for EDCR
- •3.2.2.1 Silicone “Cones” (Lacrimal Duct Stent, Bess, Berlin)
- •3.2.4 Use of Mitomycin C for EDCR
- •3.2.5 Post-Operative Care After EDCR
- •3.2.6 Results of EDCR
- •3.3 Endonasal Endoscopic Laser Dacryocystorhinostomy (ELDCR)
- •3.3.1 Indications for ELDCR
- •3.3.2 Contraindications for ELDCR
- •3.3.3 Surgical Technique for ELDCR
- •3.3.4 Potential Problems with ELDCR
- •3.3.5 Post-Operative Care After ELDCR
- •3.3.6 Results of ELDCR
- •3.4 Dacryoendoscopy with Transcanalicular Laserdacryoplasty (TLDP)
- •3.4.1 Indication for TLDP
- •3.4.2 Contraindication for TLDP
- •3.4.3 Surgical Technique for TLDP
- •3.4.4 Results of TLDP
- •3.5 Microdrill Dacryoplasty (MDP)
- •3.5.1 Indication for MDP
- •3.5.2 Contraindication for MDP
- •3.5.3 MDP Procedure
- •3.5.4 Results of MDP
- •3.6 Balloon Dilatation
- •3.6.1 Indications for Balloon Dilatation
- •3.6.2 Anaesthesia for Balloon Dilatation
- •3.6.3 Surgical Technique with 2 mm or 3 mm Balloon for Incomplete Stenosis
- •3.6.3.1 Post-Operative Care
- •3.6.3.2 Complications
- •3.6.3.3 Results
- •3.6.4.1 Post-Operative Care
- •3.6.4.2 Results
- •3.6.4.3 Complications
- •3.7 Stent Placement
- •3.7.1 Indications for Stent Placement
- •3.7.3 Surgical Technique for Stent Placement
- •3.7.5 Results of Stent Placement
- •References
- •4. Minimally Invasive Corneal Surgery
- •4.1 Penetrating Keratoplasty
- •4.1.1 Introduction
- •4.1.2 Indications
- •4.1.3 Preoperative Evaluation of the Keratoplasty Patient
- •4.1.4 Preparation for Penetrating Keratoplasty
- •4.1.4.1 Eyelid Speculum
- •4.1.4.2 Scleral Fixation Rings
- •4.1.4.3 Large and Fine-Tipped Needle Holder
- •4.1.4.4 Toothed Forceps
- •4.1.4.5 Trephine Blades
- •4.1.4.6 Radial Marker
- •4.1.4.7 Cornea Punch
- •4.1.4.8 Cutting Block
- •4.1.4.9 Scissors
- •4.1.4.10 Cannulas and Blades
- •4.1.5 Preoperative Medications
- •4.1.6 Penetrating Keratoplasty Surgical Procedure
- •4.1.6.1 Placement of the Scleral Fixation Ring
- •4.1.6.2 Marking of the Host Cornea
- •4.1.6.3 Sizing of the Trephine
- •4.1.6.4 Trephination of the Host Cornea
- •4.1.6.5 Trephination of the Donor Cornea
- •4.1.6.6 Removal of the Host Cornea
- •4.1.6.7 Placement of the Donor Cornea Tissue in the Host Stromal Bed
- •4.1.6.8 Placement of the Cardinal Sutures
- •4.1.6.9 Completion of Suturing
- •4.1.6.10 Suture Techniques
- •4.1.6.11 Subconjunctival Medications
- •4.1.7 Intraoperative Complications
- •4.1.7.1 Scleral Perforation
- •4.1.7.2 Damage to the Donor Button
- •4.1.7.4 Posterior Capsule Rupture
- •4.1.7.5 Vitreous Loss
- •4.1.7.6 Anterior Chamber Hemorrhage
- •4.1.7.7 Choroidal Hemorrhage
- •4.1.8 Postoperative Management
- •4.1.8.1 Postoperative Immunosuppressive Regimen
- •4.1.9 Postoperative Complications
- •4.1.9.1 Wound Leaks
- •4.1.9.2 Epithelial Defects
- •4.1.9.3 Suture-Related Problems
- •4.1.9.4 Increased Intraocular Pressure
- •4.1.9.5 Post-Keratoplasty Astigmatism
- •4.1.10.1 Wedge Resections and Compression Sutures
- •4.1.10.2 Relaxing Incisions
- •4.1.10.3 LASIK
- •4.1.10.4 Photorefractive Keratectomy with Mitomycin C
- •4.1.11 Corneal Allograft Rejection
- •4.1.11.1 Host Risk Factors
- •4.1.11.2 Vascularized Corneas
- •4.1.11.3 Prior Graft Loss
- •4.1.11.4 Graft Diameter
- •4.1.11.5 Anterior Synechiae
- •4.1.11.6 Previous Intraocular Surgery
- •4.1.11.7 Herpes Simplex
- •4.1.12 Treatment of Allograft Rejection
- •4.1.13 Large Diameter Penetrating Keratoplasty
- •4.1.14 Summary
- •References
- •4.2 Descemet’s Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
- •4.2.1 Introduction
- •4.2.2 Descemet’s Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty Surgical Technique
- •4.2.2.1 Donor Cornea Preparation
- •4.2.2.2 Host Cornea Preparation
- •4.2.2.3 Insertion of the Donor Cornea
- •4.2.3 Postoperative Medications
- •4.2.4 Donor Dislocation Risks
- •4.2.5 Repositioning Donor Tissue
- •4.2.6 Treatment of Rejection Episodes
- •4.2.7 Visual and Refractive Outcomes
- •4.2.8 Other Complications
- •4.2.9 Summary
- •References
- •4.3 Pterygium
- •4.3.1 Introduction
- •4.3.2 Treatment of Pterygium
- •4.3.3 Surgical Technique
- •4.3.3.1 Removal of the Pterygium
- •4.3.3.2 Harvesting the Conjunctival Autograft
- •4.3.3.3 Securing the Conjunctival Autograft
- •4.3.3.4 Fibrin Glue vs. Nylon Sutures
- •4.3.4 Postoperative Management
- •4.3.5 Recurrent Pterygium
- •4.3.6 Other Techniques in Pterygium Removal
- •4.3.6.1 Bare Scleral Technique
- •4.3.6.2 Adjunctive Agents
- •Mitomycin C
- •Beta-Irradiation
- •4.3.6.3 Amniotic Membrane Transplantation
- •4.3.7 Complications in Pterygium Removal
- •4.3.8 Summary
- •References
- •5. Minimally Invasive Refractive Surgery
- •5.1 Trends in Refractive Surgery
- •5.2 Introduction
- •5.3 Cornea Refractive Surgery
- •5.3.1 Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK)
- •5.3.1.1 Advances in Flap Creation Technology
- •Microkeratomes
- •Femtosecond Laser
- •5.3.1.2 Technological Advances in Laser Delivery Platforms
- •5.3.1.3 Faster Excimer Lasers
- •5.3.1.4 Reduction of Collateral Thermal Tissue Damage
- •5.3.1.5 Advanced Eye Trackers
- •5.3.2 PRK and Advanced Surface Ablations (ASA)
- •5.3.2.1 Decrease Thermal Load on the Cornea
- •5.3.2.2 Use of Wound-Healing Modulators
- •5.3.2.3 Trend Towards EPI-LASIK
- •5.3.3 Summary
- •5.4 Intraocular Refractive Surgery
- •5.4.1 Phakic Intraocular Lens Surgery
- •5.4.1.1 Advances in Diagnostic Equipment
- •5.4.1.2 Types of Phakic Intraocular Lens
- •5.4.1.3 Kelman-Duet Phakic Intraocular Lens
- •Lens Design
- •Surgical Technique
- •Pre-Operative Preparation
- •Operative Procedure
- •Post-Operative Care
- •Results
- •Refractive Outcomes
- •Corneal Endothelium
- •5.4.1.4 Visian Implantable Collamer Lens
- •Lens Design
- •Surgical Technique
- •Pre-Operative Preparation
- •Operative Procedure
- •Post-Operative Care
- •5.4.1.5 Results
- •5.4.2 Summary
- •5.5 Lens and Cataract Surgery
- •5.5.2 The Ideal MICS Intraocular Lens
- •5.5.2.1 Aspheric Intraocular Lenses
- •5.5.2.2 Toric Intraocular Lenses
- •5.5.2.3 ACRI.LISA 366D and ACRI.LISA TORIC 466TD
- •Lens Design
- •5.5.2.4 Surgical Technique
- •Operative Procedure
- •Post-Operative Care
- •5.5.2.5 Results
- •5.5.3 Summary
- •5.6 The Future: Beyond the Horizon of Refractive Surgery Today
- •Reference
- •6. Minimally Invasive Strabismus Surgery
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Nonsurgical Treatment
- •6.4 Rectus Muscle Procedures
- •6.4.1 MISS Rectus Muscle Recession
- •6.4.2 MISS Rectus Muscle Plication
- •6.4.3 Parks’ Rectus Muscle Recession
- •6.4.4 Parks’ Rectus Muscle Plication
- •6.4.5 MISS Rectus Muscle Posterior Fixation Suture
- •6.4.7 MISS Rectus Muscle Repeat Surgery
- •6.4.8 MISS Rectus Muscle Transposition Surgery
- •6.5 Oblique Muscle Procedures
- •6.5.1 MISS Inferior Oblique Muscle Recession
- •6.5.2 MISS Inferior Oblique Muscle Plication
- •6.5.3 MISS Superior Oblique Muscle Recession
- •6.5.4 MISS Superior Oblique Muscle Plication
- •6.5.6 Mühlendyck’s Partial Posterior Superior Oblique Tenectomy for Congenital Brown’s Syndrome
- •6.6 Postoperative Handling
- •6.7.1 Intraoperative Complications
- •6.7.2 Postoperative Complications
- •6.8 Suggestions on How to Start Doing MISS
- •6.8.1 Instruments Suitable for MISS
- •6.8.2 Suture Materials Used for MISS
- •6.8.3 General Remarks Regarding MISS Procedures
- •6.8.4 MISS Dose–Response Relationships
- •References
- •7. Minimally Invasive Iris Surgery
- •7.1 Instrumentation
- •7.2 Sutures
- •7.3 Surgical Principles of Iris Suturing
- •7.3.1 Mobilization
- •7.3.2 Intraocular Suturing and Knot Tying
- •7.3.3 Reattachment of Iris to Sclera
- •7.3.4 Pupil Repair
- •7.3.5 Adjunctive Pupil Repair Techniques
- •References
- •8. Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery
- •Introduction
- •8.1.1 Introduction to Deep Sclerectomy
- •8.1.2 Anesthesia
- •8.1.3 Surgical Technique
- •8.1.3.1 Preparation
- •8.1.3.3 Deep Flap Preparation
- •8.1.3.5 Peeling of Schlemm’s Canal and Juxtacanalicular Meshwork
- •8.1.3.6 Drainage Device
- •8.1.3.7 Wound Closure
- •8.1.4 Postoperative Management and Medication
- •8.1.4.1 Medication
- •8.1.4.2 Management
- •8.1.5 Adjunctive Treatments
- •8.1.5.1 Bleb Needling
- •8.1.5.2 Nd:YAG Goniopuncture
- •8.1.6 Complications and Management
- •8.1.6.1 General
- •8.1.6.2 Perioperative Complications
- •8.1.6.3 Early Postoperative Complications
- •8.1.6.4 Late Postoperative Complications
- •Open-Angle Glaucoma
- •Pigmentary Glaucoma
- •Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma
- •Aphakic Glaucoma
- •Sturge–Weber Syndrome
- •Glaucoma Secondary to Uveitis
- •Congenital and Juvenile Glaucoma
- •Narrow-Angle Glaucoma
- •Posttrauma Angle-Recession Glaucoma
- •Neovascular Glaucoma
- •Narrow-Angle Glaucoma in a Young Patient
- •Pseudophakic Glaucoma with an A/C IOL
- •8.2.1.4 Preoperative Considerations
- •8.2.2 Anesthesia
- •8.2.4 Postoperative Management and Medication
- •8.2.5 Outcomes and Comparison with Other Techniques
- •8.2.6 Complications and Management
- •8.2.6.1 General
- •8.2.6.4 Summary and Key Points
- •References
- •8.3 New Minimally Invasive, Sclerothalamotomy Ab Interno Surgical Technique
- •8.3.1 Introduction to the Sclerothalamotomy Ab Interno
- •8.3.1.1 Indications for the Sclerothalamotomy Ab Interno
- •8.3.2 Anesthesia
- •8.3.3 Surgical Technique
- •8.3.3.1 Preparation
- •8.3.3.2 Diathermy Probe Insertion
- •8.3.4 Postoperative Management and Medication
- •8.3.5 Outcomes and Comparison with Other Techniques
- •8.3.6 Complications and Management
- •8.3.6.1 General
- •8.3.6.3 Conclusions
- •References
- •Type of Glaucoma
- •Stage of Glaucoma
- •Combined Surgery
- •8.4.2 Anesthesia
- •8.4.3 Surgical Technique
- •8.4.3.1 Preparation
- •8.4.3.2 Implantation of the Micro-Bypass Stent
- •8.4.4 Postoperative Management and Medication
- •8.4.5 Outcomes and Combination with Other Techniques
- •8.4.5.1 Trabecular Implant in Refractory Glaucoma Patients
- •8.4.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •9. Minimally Invasive Cataract Surgery
- •10. Minimally Invasive Vitreoretinal Surgery
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Microincision Vitrectomy
- •10.2.1 Models of Wound Architecture
- •10.2.2 Vitrectomy
- •10.2.3 Adjuncts
- •10.2.4 Common Surgical Techniques
- •10.2.4.1 Macular Surgery
- •10.2.4.2 Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy
- •10.2.4.3 Retinal Detachment
- •10.2.4.4 Pediatric Vitreoretinal Surgery
- •10.2.5 Complications
- •10.2.6 Future Developments in Minimally Invasive Vitrectomy
- •10.3 Endoscopic Vitreoretinal Surgery
- •10.3.1 Introduction
- •10.3.2 History and Development of Endoscopic Ophthalmic Surgery
- •10.3.3 The Endoscope
- •10.3.4 Applications of Intraocular Endoscopy
- •10.3.4.1 Media Opacity
- •10.3.4.3 PVR and Subretinal Surgery
- •10.3.4.4 Retained Lens Fragments
- •10.3.4.5 Anterior and Retrolental Vitrectomy in Malignant Glaucoma
- •10.3.4.5 Sutured IOL and ECP
- •10.3.5 Limitations and Challenges
- •10.4 Future Directions of Minimally Invasive Vitreoretinal Surgery
- •References
- •INDEX
5 Minimally Invasive Refractive Surgery |
111 |
with midazolam (Roche, Madrid, Spain). One drop of 1% pilocarpine (Isoptocarpine, Alcon Cusi, Barcelona, Spain) is instilled into the eye 30 min before surgery.
The size of the haptic required depends on the sul- cus-to-sulcus measurement. One millimetre is added to the sulcus-to-sulcus measurement and the nearest largest haptic size is chosen (12.0, 12.5, 13.0 and 13.5 mm). For example, an eye with a sulcus-to-sulcus measurement of 11.3 mm will require a 12.5 mm haptic.
Operative Procedure
A 1 mm paracentesis is performed inferiorly corresponding to the steepest meridian. Then, a 2.5-mm or 2.0-mm corneal incision is made with a carbon knife (Accutome, Malvern, PA, USA). Preservative-free lidocaine (0.2 ml of 1%) is then used to irrigate the anterior chamber. Healon (Pharmacia, Upsala, Sweden) is injected until the anterior chamber is completely filled.
A peripheral iridotomy is performed in the superior quadrant using a surgical vitrectomy cutter. Subsequently, the haptic of the lens is then introduced, placing it in an oblique meridian. The optic part of the lens is prepared in the cartridge of a Medport injector (Bausch & Lomb, Irvine, CA, USA), with its surface curved down and eyelets perpendicular to the main axis of the cartridge. The cartridge was previously lined with 2% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (Celoftal, Alcon Cusi, Barcelona, Spain). A small piece of silicone sponge is used to prevent damage to the optic when the metal piston of the injector is pushing the lens into the eye. After the optic is injected into the anterior chamber, the eyelets of the optic is fixed to the hooks of the haptic using either two Lester or Sinskey hooks.
Healon is then removed from the anterior chamber by irrigation with balanced salt solution (BSS, Alcon Cusi, Barcelona, Spain). The corneal incision is hydrated and 0.1 ml of 1% Cefuroxime injected in the anterior chamber before the end of surgery (Fig. 5.13).
Post-Operative Care
Post-operative treatment consists of Maxidex (Alcon Cusi, Barcelona, Spain) one drop three times daily for 2 weeks and Oftacilox (Alcon Cusi, Barcelona, Spain) one drop every 12 h for 3 days.
Fig. 5.13 Kelman-Duet PIOL in the eye
Results
We examined 169 eyes of 110 patients with moderate or high myopia 1 year after implantation with the Kelman-Duet PIOL at our centre (VISSUM/Instituto Oftalmologico de Alicante, Alicante, Spain).
Refractive Outcomes
Mean pre-operative spherical equivalent refraction was −15.01 ± 4.53 D (range: −8.75 to −26.00 D). At 12 months, spherical equivalent refraction was within ±0.50 D in 57.72% of eyes (71) and within ±1.00 D in 81.30% of eyes (100). (Spherical equivalent refraction was recorded in only 123 eyes at 12 months.) At 12 months, the refraction of plano was reached in 20.54% of cases. The predictability is summarised in Fig. 5.14.
At the last post-operative visit, UCVA was 20/40 or better in 108 (83.72%) eyes and 20/20 or better in 37 (28.68%) eyes (Fig. 5.15). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved by two or more Snellen lines in 68 (56.20%) eyes (Fig. 5.16). No eye lost two or more Snellen lines of BSCVA. The efficacy index was 1.18
± 0.43 at 6 months and 1.19 ± 0.40 at 12 months.
Corneal Endothelium
Endothelial morphometric data are shown in Table 5.1. There was a decrease in pre-operative endothelial cell density and 3-month post-operative measurements, and between 3-month and 6-month post-operative measurements. However, the difference was not statistically significant for either time period. But, when preoperative and 12-month post-operative measurements
112 |
J. L. Alio et al. |
Percentage of eyes (%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
|
.51 |
|
|
. |
0 |
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
+1 |
|
|
|
+2 |
|
|
|
+3 |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
to |
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
+0 |
|
|
to |
|
|
|
to |
|
|
|
to |
|
||
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
|
to |
2 |
|
|
to |
1 |
|
|
to |
0 |
|
to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
to |
|
|
|
|
|
.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.1 |
|
|
|
+0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
- |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1 |
|
|
|
+2 |
|
|
|||
From |
|
|
|
|
From |
|
|
|
|
From |
|
|
|
|
From |
|
|
|
From |
-0 |
|
|
|
|
From |
+0 |
|
|
From |
|
|
From |
|
|
From |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Postoperative spherical equivalent (D)
Fig. 5.14 Predictability results at 12 months after implantation with the Kelman-Duet phakic intraocular lens. All parameters were recorded for all eyes only at the pre-operative visit. Data for some of the post-operative visits are missing because the
patient did not follow up. Total number of eyes: pre-operative = 146, 1 month = 146, 3 months = 128, 6 months = 131, and 12 months = 123
Fig. 5.15 Cumulative post-operative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) at 12 months after implantation with the Kelman-Duet phakic intraocular lens vs. cumulative pre-operative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)
|
100,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(%) |
70,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of eyes |
60,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
16 |
25 |
40 |
60 |
100 |
400 |
Cumulative Snellen Visual acuity (20/__)
|
|
BCVA preop |
|
UCVA postop |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
5 Minimally Invasive Refractive Surgery |
113 |
Fig. 5.16 Change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 12 months after implantation with the Kelman-Duet phakic intraocular lens
Percentage of eyes(%)
100,00% 
90,00% 
80,00% 
70,00% 
60,00% 
50,00% 
40,00% 
30,00% |
|
|
20,00% |
|
|
10,00% |
|
|
0,00% |
|
0 |
lose 2 or |
lose 1 |
|
more |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gain 1 |
|
gain 2 or |
||||
|
|
|
|
more |
||
Change of Snellen lines of BCVA
3 months
6 months
12 months
Table 5.1 Endothelial morphometric findings in 110 eyes that underwent implantation with the Kelman-Duet phakic intraocular lensa
|
|
Mean ± SD |
|
|
|
Pre-operative |
|
Post-operative |
|
|
|
3 Months |
12 Months |
|
|
|
|
||
Cell density (cells/mm2) |
2726.12 ± 376.47 |
2683.21 ± 380.32 |
2579.14 ± 320.86 |
|
Percentage of loss (%) |
|
2.73 ± 9.67 |
5.43 ± 11.19 |
|
Coefficient of variation |
46.44 ± 1957 |
35.82 ± 10.94 |
38.83 ± 9.48 |
|
aBecause different protocols were used at each centre to determine corneal endothelial changes, only endothelial data for 110 eyes from the coordinating centre were included in the analysis
were compared, the total decrease in cell density is statistically significant. As in any study concerning the endothelial cell loss in PIOLs, longer follow-up is necessary to confirm this observation.
Loss of endothelial cell density was more than 15% in 19 (17.27%) eyes. Of these cases, pupil ovalisation occurred in 8 (42.11%) eyes and the lens appeared decentred at the anterior segment in 6 (31.58%) eyes. In 4 (50.0%) of the eyes with pupil ovalisation, the haptic was exchanged to improve the situation.
Complications
Surgery was completed successfully in all eyes with no intraoperative complications. Post-operatively, no lens
opacification, chronic increased IOP, or pupillary block occurred, and none of the lenses had to be explanted during the follow-up period.
In the early post-operative period, one (0.59%) eye experienced synechiae between the iris and the optic of the lens. This was resolved by widening the iridotomy. Endothelial cell density loss was >20% in this eye. Additionally, significant flare reaction occurred in 1 (0.59%) eye at 1 month post-operatively but was resolved with injection of intracameral triamcinolone acetonide. Mild and severe levels of pupil ovalisation were present in 17 (10.06%) eyes. Normally, this phenomenon is produced by inadequate adjustment of the total length of the haptic to the internal intertrabecular distance of the eye. For this reason, haptic exchange
