Secondary Sutureless Posterior Chamber Lens Implantation with Two Specifically Designed IOLs: Iris Claw Lens versus Sutureless Trans-Scleral Plugs Fixated Lens.

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with aphakia and/or lack of capsular support remains debated. The sutureless posterior chamber IOL (PCIOL) fixation is a very useful surgical option. The purpose of the study was to compare the early outcomes as well as post-operative best corrected visual acuity, refractive errors and complications of two different techniques of sutureless PCIOL secondary implantation. METHODS: Patients who underwent secondary implantation from December 2019 to January 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology of Creteil Hospital, and in the Granville Ophthalmology Center, were retrospectively included. Eyes implanted with the iris claw lens (Artisan Aphakia IOL model 205, Ophtec BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) were included in group 1, and eyes implanted with a newly developed sutureless trans-scleral plugs fixated lens (STSPFL, Carlevale lens, Soleko, Pontecorvo, Italy) were included in group 2. RESULTS: Twenty-two eyes of 22 patients were enrolled in group 1, and twenty eyes of 20 patients in group 2. No difference was found in visual acuity between two groups (0.35 +/- 0.29 logmar for group 1 and 0.23 +/- 0.51 logmar for group 2) (p = 0.15) at mean post-operative follow up (6.19 +/- 3.44 months for group 1 and 6.42 +/- 3.96 months for group 2) (p = 0.13). Both the mean refractive error (MRE) and induced astigmatism (IA) were greater in group 1 compared to group 2, respectively: the MRE was 0.99 +/- 0.57 vs. 0.46 +/- 0.36 (p < 0.01), and IA was 1.72 +/- 0.96 vs. 0.72 +/- 0.52 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in terms of the recovery of visual acuity were found between the two groups. Group 2 (STPFL) gives better results in our sample due to less post-operative induced astigmatism and less refractive error.

In vivo confocal microscopy evaluation of ocular and cutaneous alterations in patients with rosacea.

AIMS: The physiopathology of rosacea and the correlation between ocular and cutaneous rosacea remains unclear. This study analysed ocular and cutaneous rosacea with in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM). METHODS: Thirty-four eyes of 34 patients with confirmed rosacea-associated meibomian gland dysfunction-related evaporative dry eye were enrolled in the study. The ophthalmological investigations included dry eye ocular surface disease index (OSDI), the Schirmer test, tear osmolarity, tear break up time, the Oxford score, infrared meibography for meibomian gland (MG) analysis and IVCM investigation for cornea, MG and skin analysis (cheek, hand). Presences of Demodex in the MG and in the cheek were also investigated. We established scores for quantifying the MG alterations in the MG (IVCM-MG) and cheek (IVCM-Cheek), and scores for Demodex quantification in the MG and cheek (IVCM-MG-Dex and IVCM-Cheek-Dex). RESULTS: IVCM was relevant for analysing the cornea and MG structures and was also suitable for cutaneous analysis. Exposed skin explorations presented the epidermal and dermal layers clearly. In patients with rosacea, the IVCM-MG alteration scores were correlated with IVCM-Cheek (R2=0.27 and p=0.0006) and IVCM-MG-Dex was correlated with IVCM-Cheek-Dex (R2=0.70 and p<0.0001). However, no correlation was found between the IVCM-MG or IVCM-Cheek and the break up time, Schirmer, Oxford and osmolarity evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: IVCM could be a safe, effective and reliable tool to quantify alterations of the cornea, MG and cheek glands in patients with rosacea combined with quantification of Demodex infections. As a valuable tool for investigating the pathophysiology of the disease, it could be used to assess the effectiveness of therapy.

In vivo confocal microscopy as a novel and reliable tool for the diagnosis of Demodex eyelid infestation.

AIMS: Demodex mites are implicated in several ocular surface diseases such as blepharitis, ocular rosacea and dry eye syndrome. Demodex eyelid infestation is classically diagnosed by analysing depilated eyelashes under the light microscope. The use of in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) could be an easy way to improve its diagnosis. The ability of IVCM to identify Demodex was evaluated and compared with the classic depilation method. METHODS: Eight healthy subjects, 22 patients with dry eye syndrome without anterior blepharitis and 18 patients with anterior blepharitis were examined using lower eyelid IVCM (lash follicles and meibomian glands (MGs)). Twenty-five of the 48 subjects underwent both an IVCM examination and classic depilation to compare the two methods. Ex vivo Demodex obtained from lash depilation were also analysed using the confocal microscope. RESULTS: IVCM found 100% of the mite infestations among patients with anterior blepharitis, 60% among dry eye patients without blepharitis and 12% in healthy subjects, whereas the depilation technique found 100%, 50% and 0%, respectively. Demodex brevis and Demodex larvae inside the lash follicles were better detected by IVCM. In symptomatic patients, the Demodex infestation was often associated with MG dysfunction, which was better characterised using IVCM in symptomatic patients (60% and 40% of meibomianitis and gland fibrosis, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IVCM is an efficient and reliable tool for the diagnosis of eyelid mite infestation and may also provide an evaluation of MGs.