|
NR 1-3/2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis of causes
of intraocular lens explantations in the material of Department
of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Lodz
Analiza przyczyn
eksplantacji soczewek wewnątrzgałkowych w materiale Kliniki
Chorób Oczu Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
Wilczyński Michał, Wilczyńska Olena,
Omulecki Wojciech
1st Chair and Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of
Lodz
Head: Professor Omulecki Wojciech, MD, PhD |
|
|
| Summary: |
Purpose:
Implantation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) has become a
standard practice in cataract surgery, however, similar
to any other type of surgery, using IOLs is not
complication-free and sometimes explantation of
intraocular lenses may be necessary.
This study was to gather data and analyze causes of
intraocular lens explantations, performed in the
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Łódź.
Materials and methods: The data were gathered
from medical documentation of all patients who underwent
intraocular lens removal from January 2003 to July 2006.
The examined group consisted of 16 patients (16 eyes): 9
women (fraction 0.56), and 7 men (fraction 0.44), at the
age from 21 to 82 years (mean age 62.4 years, SD ±
15.5). In all patients IOL explantation was performed
under local, peribulbar anaesthesia.
Results: Two groups of patients were
distinguished: patients who had an anterior chamber lens
explanted (3 patients, fraction 0.19) and patients who
underwent posterior chamber lens explantation (13
patients, fraction 0.81). Causes of AC IOL explantations
were: vaulting of the IOL (1 eye, fraction 0.06),
luxation of the IOL to the vitreous cavity (1 eye,
fraction 0.06), and painful eyeball after anterior
chamber lens implantation (1 eye, fraction 0.06). Causes
of PC IOL explantations were: subluxation of the IOL (6
eyes, fraction 0.38), luxation of the lens to the
vitreous cavity (3 eyes, fraction 0.19), luxation of the
lens to the anterior chamber (1 eye, fraction 0.06),
endophthalmitis (2 eyes, fraction 0.13) and incorrect
lens power (1 eye, fraction 0.06).
Conclusions : In the majority of eyes (n = 13,
fraction 0.81) the removed implant was replaced by
another intraocular lens, but 3 eyes (fraction 0.19)
were left aphakic. We did not observe serious intra- or
early postoperative complications which might influence
the final result of the operation. |
| Słowa kluczowe: |
eksplantacja, soczewki
wewnątrzgałkowe, powikłania, chirurgia zaćmy,
fakoemulsyfikacja. |
| Key words: |
explantation, intraocular
lens, complications, cataract surgery,
phacoemulsification. |
|
|
|
Introduction
Every cataract surgeon will encounter some complications in his
practice, from time to time. Implantation of intraocular lenses
(IOLs) has become a standard practice in cataract surgery,
however, similar to any other type of surgery, using IOLs is not
complication-free and sometimes explantation of artificial
lenses may be necessary. In this study we have examined
retrospectively a consecutive series of all patients undergoing
artificial lens removal.
Purpose
The purpose of the study was to gather data and analyze causes
of intraocular lens explantations, performed in the Department
of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Łódź.
The number of publications concerning this subject both in
Polish and international literature is very limited.
Material and methods
The data were gathered from medical documentation of all
patients who underwent artificial intraocular lens removal from
January 2003 to July 2006.
The following data were analyzed: age, gender, diagnosis and
cause of IOL explantation, present and past ophthalmologic
treatment, best corrected visual acuity measured preoperatively,
1 day and 7 days postoperatively, intraocular pressure and the
state of the anterior and posterior segment evaluated by
biomicroscopy and indirect ophthalmoscopy using a slit lamp and
a Volk Superfield NC lens. We also evaluated presence of
intraoperative and early postoperative complications.
In the records, we found 16 eyes in which IOL explantation was
performed.
The examined group consisted of 16 eyes (16 patients): 9 women (fraction
0.56 of the examined group), and 7 men (fraction 0.44), at the
age from 21 to 82 years (mean age 62.4 years, standard deviation
± 15.5). In all patients IOL explantation was performed under
local, peribulbar anaesthesia.
Results
Two groups of patients were identified: patients who had an
anterior chamber lens explantation (3 patients, fraction 0.19)
and patients who underwent posterior chamber lens explantation
(13 patients, fraction 0.81). Causes of IOL explantation are
shown in Table I. Patients are characterized in Table II.
Among the explanted intraocular lenses, posterior chamber
implants prevailed. The most frequent causes of IOL explantation
were either subluxation or complete luxation of the PC IOL to
the vitreous cavity (in total these causes constituted a
fraction of 0.62).
Best corrected visual acuity is shown in table 3. It can be
observed that after an initial decrease in visual acuity in
early postoperative period, there was an increase in the
percentage of eyes with best corrected visual acuity better than
5/25 (fraction amounted to 0.56 preoperatively and increased to
0.88 seven days postoperatively) (Table III).
Visual acuity improved in 7 eyes (fraction 0.44), remained
unchanged in 5 eyes (fraction 0.31) (improved or remained
unchanged in 11 eyes in total, which constituted a fraction of
0.69), and decreased postoperatively in 5 eyes (fraction 0.31).
The main reason for a postoperative decrease in visual acuity
was corneal edema. The mean intraocular pressure was within
normal range during the whole period of observation (Table IV).
In the examined group, in the majority of eyes (n = 13, fraction
0.81), the removed implant was replaced by another artificial
lens, but 3 eyes (fraction 0.19), were left aphakic.
In the group of patients who had an anterior chamber lens
removed, in 1 eye (fraction 0.06,) which had received an AC IOL
because of aphakia, the AC IOL showed a marked vaulting towards
the cornea because of a too large lens diameter. In this eye the
removed implant was replaced with another anterior chamber lens.
In 1 eye with an AC IOL, a blunt trauma to the eye resulted in a
luxation of the lens to the vitreous. Similarly, in this eye,
after removing the luxated lens, another anterior chamber
intraocular implant was used.
In the next case, the reason for AC IOL explantation was strong
pain of the eyeball which started some time after the AC IOL was
implanted. During an ophthalmic examination it turned out that
the haptic of the IOL pierced the iris, it was also partially
ingrown in the iris. After the implant was explanted, the eye
was left aphakic, the previously-described pain disappeared.
In the group of patients, who had a posterior chamber lens (PC
IOL) removed, in 6 eyes (fraction 0.38), there was a subluxation
of the artificial lens. One patient from this group suffered
from Marfan’s syndrome. In this patient the subluxated PC IOL
was replaced with a sclerally-fixated PC IOL. In other patients
from this group, the subluxated PC IOLs were replaced with an AC
IOL.
In 3 eyes (fraction 0.187), with luxation of the PC IOL to the
vitreous cavity, pars plana vitrectomy was performed with the
use of perfluorocarbon liquid (DK-line), in order to elevate the
artificial lens to the retropupillary space and to aid the
exchange of the luxated lens for an AC IOL.
In 1 eye (fraction 0.06), the reason for IOL removal was
luxation of the PC IOL to the anterior chamber. In this eye,
after anterior vitrectomy was performed, and AC IOL was
implanted.
In 1 eye (fraction 0.06), the reason for lens exchange was a
biometric error in an eye with mature cataract. In this eye, a
PC IOL was replaced with another PC IOL which was implanted
in-the-bag.
In 2 eyes (fraction 0.13), the cause of PC IOL explantation was
endophthalmitis with a thick inflammatory membrane on the
surface of the IOL (in 1 eye the lens was also subluxated). In
these eyes, explantation of the IOL was combined with pars plana
vitrectomy and intravitreal injection of vancomycine. These eyes
were left aphakic.
In the examined group we did not observe serious intraoperative
complications. We found that in 2 eyes (fraction 0.13), there
was a minor bleeding to the anterior chamber and in 1 eye (fraction
0.06,) there was a rupture of the haptics during explantation (the
broken fragment of the haptic was subsequently removed
completely).
Similarly, we did not observe early postoperative complications
which might influence the final result of the procedure. We
found that the most frequent early postoperative complications
were: corneal edema (7 eyes, fraction 0.438), and Descemet’s
membrane folds (6 eyes, fraction 0.38). We also found other
minor postoperative complications, such as: dispersed blood in
the anterior chamber (2 eyes, fraction 0.13), transient
intraocular pressure rise (2 eyes, fraction 0.13), minor
fibrinoid reaction in the anterior chamber (2 eyes, fraction
0.13), pupil deformation (1 eye, fraction 0.06), and transient
hypotony (1 eye, fraction 0.06). Frequencies of the
above-mentioned complications should not be added, as some of
them occurred simultaneously.
Discussion
In the literature, there have been a few papers published,
analyzing causes of intraocular lens explantations. In many
publications decentration or subluxation are frequent reasons
for IOL removal. There are many possible complications of
anterior chamber IOL dislocation, such as uveitis, glaucoma,
hyphema, cystic macular edema and corneal decompensation. It is
generally thought that complications of posterior chamber IOL
dislocation are not so severe and include monocular aphakia,
diplopia (which is caused by image shift due to prismatic effect),
as well as glare. It is always reasonable to consider
conservative observation and medication before the decision
about surgery is made. In such cases it is also important to
take into consideration the type and location of the lens,
patient’s age and symptoms, visual acuity, corneal endothelial
cell count, the presence of intraocular inflammation and the
status of the other eye (1).
Severe symptoms can be managed by either repositioning,
explanting, or exchanging the IOL. Explantation of an AC IOL is
usually performed in cases of chronic uveitis, glaucoma, hyphema
syndrome (UGH), resistant to medical therapy, tenderness (often
indicating a lens which is too large), luxation to the vitreous,
as well as unwanted optical images (1).
If a posterior capsular remnant is present and offers adequate
support, it may be possible to rotate the displaced PC IOL and
to position it in the ciliary sulcus or replace it with a
single-piece all-PMMA lens with a large diameter (13 mm), and
position it in the ciliary sulcus. If this is not possible the
lens may be replaced with a sclerally-sutured PC IOL or an AC
IOL (also fixated to the iris) (1).
Walkow et al. (2) investigated causes of IOL dislocation and
found that asymmetric implantation, asymmetric capsular
shrinkage, posterior synechiae, rupture of the posterior capsule,
zonular defects and extensive secondary cataract all caused
dislocation of the IOL.
In a survey by Mamalis (3) the most frequent cause for IOL
explantation was incorrect lens power (38%), glare and optical
aberrations (31%), glare and optical aberrations combined with
incorrect lens power and IOL dislocation (16%, and dislocation
or decentration 15%), dislocation constituted 31% of cases in
total.
In our study the number of cases with incorrect lens power was
much smaller, on the other hand the percentage of dislocation or
subluxation cases was similar.
In another paper Mamalis (4) stated that decentration or
dislocation and incorrect lens power, as well as glare and
optical aberrations are leading indications for explantation. He
also noted that visual results after exchange of modern
intraocular lenses are good, which is probably a result of a
small number of severe complications leading to explantation of
the lenses.
In a large study by Schmidbauer et al. (5) it was found that the
most frequent reason for explantation was decentration or
dislocation of the IOL. The authors have also found that in case
of foldable IOLs optic and haptic damage and posterior capsule
rupture were more frequent than in rigid implants, whereas rigid
lenses led more often to corneal decompensation.
In a survey conducted by Dick et al. (6), authors have found
that the most frequent causes of IOL explantation were:
incorrect lens power, glare or other photic phenomena and IOL
damage or opacification of the optics (the last cause was
present only in case of Hydrogel IOLs). Authors do not mention
IOLs luxation to the vitreous cavity, which was the second most
frequent condition leading to explantation in our series of
patients.
In two studies published recently by Mamalis et al. (7,8)
authors confirmed previous findings and stated that the most
common reasons for removing an IOL were intraocular lens
calcification, incorrect lens power, optical aberrations and
decentration/dislocation.
|
|
Recently Dick et al. (9) published
an update to their previous report on causes leading to IOL
explantation. They found that in 2000 and 2001 the most common
causes of IOL explantation were: incorrect lens power, IOL
dislocation and opacification (of hydrophilic IOLs).
Nicula et al. (10) found that, in their series of patients,
edematous keratopathy, chronic uveitis and IOL decentration were
the most frequent causes for IOL removal. Nevertheless, it is
noteworthy that in their material they had a significant
proportion of anterior chamber lenses (51.85%).
Auffarth et al. (11) in their study of incidence and outcome of
IOL explantation suggest that clinical outcome depends more on
the quality of surgery than on the type of selected lens.
Sinskey et al. (12) performed a retrospective study of a large
series of intraocular lens exchanges and found that the most
frequent indications for lens exchange were displaced IOL
(41.7%), corneal decompensation (27.7%), incorrect IOL power
(12.6%), and uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome (10.0%).
Price et al. (13) obtained similar results – in their series of
patients 58.8% of IOLs were removed because of dislocation or
improper fixation, 12.6% because of anisometropia, and 18 15.1%
because of chronic inflammatory reaction.
In another study Mamalis et al. (14) stated that in case of
anterior chamber IOLs pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, UGH
syndrome and cystoid macular edema were the main causes for IOL
explantation, whereas in case of posterior chamber IOLs lens
dislocation/decentration was the leading indication for IOL
removal.
In many publications artificial lens luxation to the vitreous is
not a frequent cause for IOL explantation. In the management of
posteriorly dislocated intraocular lenses there are a few
options available to the surgeon. If there is an adequate
capsular support, the luxated lens may be repositioned into the
ciliary sulcus, however, if the capsular support is inadequate
or absent, the lens must either be fixated to the sclera or iris
or exchanged for an anterior chamber IOL (15).
In our group of patients there were 2 eyes which underwent IOL
explantation because of endophthalmitis. It is generally held
that IOL explantation in the course of endophthalmitis can help
restore useful vision and prevent recurrence. Busin et al. (16)
described a series of 11 patients who had an IOL removed because
of chronic low-grade endophthalmitis after cataract extraction.
They concluded that IOL removal with partial or total
capsulectomy provided a good surgical approach to the treatment
of endophthalmitis which is not responsive to medical therapy.
Also Foster et al. (17) described a series of patients treated
for uveitis who underwent phacoemulsification complicated by
intraocular inflammation not responding to anti-inflammatory
treatment, who finally required IOL explantation. The authors
concluded that intraocular lens removal may help maintain useful
vision in patients who had complications secondary to uveitis
after cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation.
There are other causes of IOL explantation that can be found in
the literature, for instance: cracked intraocular lens (18),
lens implantation in patients with chronic uveitis causing
prolonged inflammatory reaction (19), calcification of hydrogel
intraocular lenses (deposits of calcium phosphate on the
explanted lens’ surfaces), which caused decrease in vision and
reduced contrast sensitivity (20,21), a posterior chamber IOL
that was implanted in the anterior chamber following a
complicated extracapsular cataract extraction (22).
In our series of patients we observed an improvement of visual
acuity in the majority of patients, which is consistent with
other reports. Mamalis et al. (14) found that in 39%of patients
after IOL exchange their vision improved, 46% of patients had
the same vision, and in 15% vision decreased postoperatively.
They stated that the most common reason for the worsening of
vision postoperatively was corneal decompensation, as well as
glaucoma and cystoid macular edema. Our results are in
accordance with their findings. Similarly, Sinskey et al. (12)
stated that 72% of the cases had postoperative visual acuity
better than or equal to 20/30, and 8% had a loss of one or more
lines of visual acuity. Among the complications occurring after
IOL exchange were retinal detachment, glaucoma, corneal
decompensation, and anisometropia.
In conclusion, despite significant advances of ophthalmology in
the recent years, explantation of the intraocular lenses is
sometimes necessary. Considering the large number of lenses
which is implanted each year, the rate of IOL explantation is
low.
Good surgical technique, accurate calculation of IOL power and
constant improvement in technology and IOL designs are important
in avoiding complications and in minimizing the number of
explantations. If an IOL explantation is necessary, careful
intraoperative and postoperative management will help to perform
the procedure safely, ensuring a favourable outcome.
This study was presented at the VIII Symposium
of the Section of Intraocular Implants and Refractive Surgery of
the Polish Ophthalmologic Society, Lodz, 05-07.10.2006.
References:
1. Steinert RF, Cionni RJ, Osher RH, Blumenkranz MS, Koch DD,
Novak KD, Kalina PH, Shingleton BJ, Richter CU, Pesavento R,
Fong DS, Topping TM, Duker JS, Raizman MB: Complications of
Cataract Surgery (w:) Albert DM, Jakobiec FA: Principles and
Practice of Ophthalmology, 2nd edition, W. B. Saunders Company,
Philadelphia. 2000, CD-ROM.
2. Walkow T, Anders N, Pham DT, Wollensak J: Causes of severe
decentration and subluxation of intraocular lenses. Graefe’s
Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1998, 236, 9-12.
3. Mamalis N: Complications of foldable intraocular lenses
requiring explanation or secondary intervention – 1998 survey. J
Cataract Refract Surg 2000, 26, 766-772.
4. Mamalis N: Explantation of intraocular lenses. Curr Opin
Ophthalmol 2000, 11, 289-295.
5. Schmidbauer JM, Apple DJ, Auffarth GU, Peng Q, Pandey SK,
Werner L, Escobar-Gomez M, Vargas LG: Complication profiles of
posterior chamber intraocular lenses IOL. An analysis of 586
foldable and 2077 rigid explanted intraocular lenses. Der
Ophthalmologe 2001, 98, 1029-1035.
6. Dick HB, Tehrani M, Brauweiler P, Haefliger E, Neuhann T,
Scharrer A: Complications with foldable intraocular lenses with
subsequent explantation in 1998 and 1999. Results of a
questionnaire evaluation. Der Ophthalmologe 2002, 99, 438-443.
7. Mamalis N: Complications of foldable intraocular lenses
requiring explantation or secondary intervention – 2001 survey
update. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002, 28, 2193-2201.
8. Mamalis N, Davis B, Nilson CD, Hickman MS, Leboyer RM:
Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring
explantation or secondary intervention – 2003 survey update. J
Cataract Refract Surg 2004, 30, 2209-2218.
9. Dick HB, Tehrani M, Brauweiler P, Haefliger E, Neuhann T,
Scharrer A: Complications of foldable intraocular lenses
requiring explantation. Results of the 2000 and 2001 survey in
Germany. Der Ophthalmologe 2003, 100, 465-470.
10. Nicula C, Nicula D, Blidaru M: Explantation and replacement
of intraocular lenses. Oftalmologia 2004, 48, 82-86.
11. Auffarth GU, Wilcox M, Sims JC, McCabe C, Wesendahl TA,
Apple DJ: Analysis of 100 explanted one-piece and three-piece
silicone intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 1995, 102, 1144-1150.
12. Sinskey RM, Amin P, Stoppel JO: Indications for and results
of a large series of intraocular lens exchanges. J Cataract
Refrac Surg 1993, 19, 68-71.
13. Price FW Jr, Whitson WE, Collins K, Johns S: Explantation of
posterior chamber lenses. J Cataract Refrac Surg 1992, 18,
475-479.
14. Mamalis N, Crandall AS, Pulsipher MW, Follett S, Monson MC:
Intraocular lens explantation and exchange. A review of lens
styles, clinical indications, clinical results, and visual
outcome. J Cataract Refract Surg 1991, 17, 811-818.
15. Mittra RA, Connor TB, Han DP, Koenig SB, Mieler WF, Pulido
JS: Removal of dislocated intraocular lenses using pars plana
vitrectomy with placement of an open-loop, flexible anterior
chamber lens. Ophthalmology 1998, 105, 1011-1014.
16. Busin M, Cusumano A, Spitznas M: Intraocular lens removal
from eyes with chronic low-grade endophthalmitis. J Cataract
Refract Surg 1995, 21, 679-684.
17. Foster CS, Stavrou P, Zafirakis P, Rojas B, Tesavibul N,
Baltatzis S: Intraocular lens removal from [corrected] patients
with uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1999, 128, 31-37.
18. Lee GA, Dal Pra ML: Cracked acrylic intraocular lens
requiring explantation. Austr New Zealand J Ophthalmol 1997, 25,
71-73.
19. Harper SL, Foster CS: Intraocular lens explantation in
uveitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2000, 40, 107-116.
20. Fernando GT, Crayford BB: Visually significant calcification
of hydrogel intraocular lenses necessitating explantation. Clin
Exper Ophthalmol 2000, 28, 280-276.
21. van Looveren J, Tassignon MJ: Intraocular lens exchange for
late-onset opacification. Bulletin de la Societe Belge
D’ophtalmologie 2004, 293, 61-68.
22. Mandal AK, Bagga H: Pupillary block glaucoma following
implantation of a posterior chamber pseudophakos in the anterior
chamber. Indian J Ophthalmol 2002, 50, 54-56.
The study was originally received: 21.11.2008 (1099)/
Praca wpłynęła do Redakcji 21.11.2008 r. (1099)
Accepted for publication: 20.01.2009/
Zakwalifikowano do druku 20.01.2009 r.Adres do
korespondencji (Reprint requests to):
dr n. med. Michał Wilczyński
I Katedra i Klinika Chorób Oczu
Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi
Szpital Kliniczny Nr. 1 im. N. Barlickiego
ul. Kopcinskiego 22
90-153 Łódź
e-mail:
michalwilczynski@wp.pl
|
|
| |
| AC IOL/ Soczewka przedniokomorowa |
Number/
Liczba |
Fraction/
Frakcja |
Dislocation and vaulting /
Przemieszczenie i uwypuklenie |
1 |
0.06 |
Luxation to the vitreous/
Zwichnięcie do ciała szklistego |
1 |
0.06 |
Painful eye/
Bolesna gałka |
1 |
0.06 |
| PC IOL/ Soczewka tylnokomorowa |
|
|
Subluxation/
Podwichnięcie |
6 |
0.38 |
Luxation to the vitreous/
Zwichnięcie do ciała szklistego |
3 |
0.19 |
Luxation to the anterior chamber/
Zwichnięcie przedniej komory |
1 |
0.06 |
Endophthalmitis/
Zapalenie wewnatrzgałkowe |
2 |
0.13 |
Incorrect lens power/
Niewłaściwa moc wszczepu |
1 |
0.06 |
Tab. I. Causes of AC and PC IOL explantation.
Tab. I. Przyczyny eksplantacji soczewek przednio- i tylnokomorowych.
|
|
Preoperatively/
Przed
zabiegiem |
1 day
postoperatively/
1 dzień po zabiegu |
7 days
postoperatively/
7 dni po zabiegu |
|
|
N |
Fraction/ Frakcja |
N |
Fraction/
Frakcja |
N |
Fraction/
Frakcja |
|
<= 5/50 |
7 |
0.44 |
8 |
0.50 |
2 |
0.13 |
|
5/25 - 5/12 |
4 |
0.25 |
5 |
0.31 |
8 |
0.50 |
|
5/10 - 5/5 |
5 |
0.31 |
3 |
0.19 |
6 |
0.38 |
Tab. III. Best corrected visual acuity.
Tab. III. Ostrość wzroku z najlepszą korekcją.
| To (mmHg) |
Preoperatively/
Przed zabiegiem |
1 day
postoperatively/
1 dzień po zabiegu |
7 days
postoperatively/
7 dni po zabiegu |
| Mean |
15.94 |
14.91 |
13.13 |
| ±SD |
4.42 |
9.51 |
5.12 |
Tab. IV. Mean intraocular pressure (mmHg).
Tab. IV. Średnie ciśnienie wewnątrzgałkowe (mmHg).
|
|
|
Nr |
Gender/ płeć |
Age/ wiek |
Cause of explantation/ przyczyna
eksplantacji |
Removed lens/ usunięta soczewka |
Implanted lens/ wszczepiona soczewka |
New lens’ position/ umiejscowienie nowego
wszczepu |
|
1 |
M |
21 |
SUBLX |
PC |
PC SF |
Correct |
|
2 |
F |
74 |
AC-VLT |
AC |
AC |
Correct |
|
3 |
M |
57 |
SUBLX |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
4 |
F |
50 |
LUX-VB |
AC |
AC |
Correct |
|
5 |
F |
75 |
SUBLX |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
6 |
F |
43 |
SUBLX |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
7 |
M |
60 |
LUX-VB |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
8 |
F |
74 |
ILP |
PC |
PC |
Correct |
|
9 |
M |
61 |
LUX-VB |
PC |
PC (sulcus) |
Correct |
|
10 |
M |
77 |
LUX-VB |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
11 |
F |
69 |
SUBLX |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
12 |
F |
75 |
PE |
AC |
None |
– |
|
13 |
M |
56 |
LUX-AC |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
14 |
F |
66 |
ENDO |
PC |
None |
– |
|
15 |
M |
58 |
SUBLX |
PC |
AC |
Correct |
|
16 |
F |
82 |
ENDO |
PC |
None |
– |
Tab. II. Characteristics of patients.
Tab. II. Charakterystyka pacjentów.
Legend/ Legenda:
SUBLX – subluxated lens/ podwichnięta soczewka
AC-VLT – vaulting of AC IOL/ uwypuklenie wszczepu
przedniokomorowego
LUX-VB – luxation of the lens to the vitreous/ zwichnięcie
wszczepu do ciała szklistego
ILP – incorrect lens power/ niewłaściwa moc wszczepu
PE – painful eyeball/ bolesna gałka
LUX-AC – luxation of the PC IOL to the anterior chamber/
zwichnięcie wszczepu
tylnokomorowego do przedniej komory
ENDO – endophthalmitis/ zapalenie wewnatrzgałkowe
|
|
|
