[Assessment of astigmatism associated with the iris-fixated ARTISAN aphakia implant: Anterior fixation versus posterior fixation, study of postoperative follow-up at one year].
J Fr Ophtalmol 2018;
41:696-707. [PMID:
30217610 DOI:
10.1016/j.jfo.2018.01.014]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2017] [Revised: 01/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/26/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE
The goal of our retrospective, single-center study of a case series was to compare the total, corneal, and internal astigmatism, and the visual acuity at one year after combined or stand-alone surgery consisting of iris fixation of an iris-claw intraocular lens (ARTISAN aphakia) in aphakic patients, according to whether the lens was fixated to the anterior (n=21) or posterior (n=51) surface of the iris.
RESULTS
We did not find a significant difference between these two types of fixation for any of the studied variables. The surgically induced astigmatism was 1.67 D at 176° in group A versus 1.19 D at 11° in group P.
CONCLUSION
Although this surgery creates additional corneal astigmatism, it has not been proven that it differs depending on the type of fixation of the iris-claw. If we adhere to the notion that the posterior fixated iris-claw decreases the risk of endothelial decompensation in case the implant becomes disenclavated, then reverse iris fixation of the iris-claw makes sense.
Collapse