ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim was to evaluate visual and refractive results and complications of intraocular lens (IOL) exchange through a 3.2 mm corneal incision for opacified IOLs. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study comprised 33 eyes of 32 patients with IOL opacification requiring an IOL exchange between July 2003 and March 2007. Exchange surgery was performed through a 3.2-mm temporal clear corneal incision followed by implantation of a new foldable hydrophobic IOL. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), topographical astigmatism, and refractive cylinder were evaluated. Surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was calculated and complications were recorded. Results: Opacification was observed in 25 eyes (76%) with Aqua-Sense, 3 eyes (9%) with Hydroview, 3 eyes (9%) with MemoryLens IOLs, and 2 eyes (6%) with DgR. The mean follow-up period was 36.54 months. An uneventful IOL exchange was achieved in 18 eyes (55%). Zonular dehiscence occurred in 9 eyes (27%), and posterior capsule tear developed in 4 eyes (12%). The mean preoperative BSCVA (mean ± standard deviation, decimal scale) was 0.13 ± 0.08 (mean: 20/150, range 20/2000 to 20/60) and improved to 0.63 ± 0.18 (mean: 20/32, range 20/60 to 20/20, P < 0.001). The mean SIA was 0.70 D. Seven eyes (21%) had 0.5 D or lower SIA. Conclusion: IOL exchange is a technically challenging procedure with potential risks of reversing the advantages of a prior small-incision cataract surgery. The use of a small corneal incision for IOL exchange could preserve the advantages of modern phacoemulsification surgery with acceptable SIA related to the procedure.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and complications of intraocular lens (IOL) exchange. METHODS: A review of medical records was performed for 52 eyes that had undergone an IOL exchange due to IOL opacification. Surgical complications and their incidences were analyzed. The mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after the IOL exchange was compared with the mean pre-exchange BCVA and with the mean BCVA after the initial IOL implantation. Prediction error of refraction and biometric data obtained for the IOL exchange were, if available, compared with those obtained for the initial IOL implantation. The prediction error for the IOL exchange, calculated from the biometric data obtained before the IOL exchange, was compared with that calculated from the measurements obtained before the initial IOL implantation. RESULTS: The overall complication rates were low and no serious complications were found. The mean BCVA improved significantly after the IOL exchange and was not significantly different from that obtained after the initial IOL implantation. However, the refractive prediction for the IOL exchange was not as good as it was for the initial IOL implantation, which was thought to be related with difficulties in axial length (AL) measurements. Biometric data taken before the initial IOL implantation was associated with a significantly better refractive prediction than those taken before the IOL exchange. CONCLUSIONS: IOL exchange was both efficacious and safe for visual recovery. However, IOL exchange was related with increased difficulty of predicting postoperative refraction; difficulties in AL measurements are the suggested cause.