Posterior iris-claw intraocular lens implantation as an effective option in aphakia

Intraocular lens implantation in the absence of capsular support: scleral-fixated vs retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lenses

“…12,18,19,25,27,39,44,45,47–49,63,64,77,79,80 In RP-IC IOLs studies, it has been found to be 0.70% to 7.7% after mean follow-up ranging between 1 month and 8 years. 8,33,47,48,52,54,59–62,67,74,85,87 Although 2 comparative studies of SF IOL and RP-IC IOLs implantations have reported a slightly higher incidence of retinal detachment in the RP-IC IOLs group (0% vs 1.11% in Kelkar et al and 2% vs 4% in Madhivanan et al), the difference was not statistically significant. Of note, in a study by Madhivanan et al, eyes with RP-IC IOL had significantly more retinal pathology and corneal edema at the time of IOL placement compared with SF IOL-implanted eyes.…”

“…43 Correspondingly, because of the more challenging surgical technique of SF IOL implantation, it is associated with a longer learning curve. 7,87 Because of this reason, Jing et al suggested in their meta-analysis report that some surgeons avoid using SF IOLs when facing difficult cases. 7 On the other hand, multiple authors have discussed that the RP-IC IOL implantation procedure is relatively simpler, has a shorter learning curve, is less time consuming, and associated with fewer complications.…”

“…7 On the other hand, multiple authors have discussed that the RP-IC IOL implantation procedure is relatively simpler, has a shorter learning curve, is less time consuming, and associated with fewer complications. 7,37,87,113 Because of these advantages, primary fixation of RP-IC IOLs seems to be more desirable by cataract surgeons. In a recent retrospective, comparative study of SF IOL and RP-IC IOL implantation, it was observed that the primary implantation of RP-IC IOLs was performed much more frequently compared with that of SF IOLs.…”

“…12,18,19,25,27,39,44,45,[47][48][49]63,64,77,79,80 In RP-IC IOLs studies, it has been found to be 0.70% to 7.7% after mean follow-up ranging between 1 month and 8 years. 8,33,47,48,52,54,[59][60][61][62]67,74,85,87 Although 2 comparative studies of SF IOL and RP-IC IOLs implantations have reported a slightly higher incidence of retinal detachment in the RP-IC IOLs group (0% vs 1.11% in Kelkar et…”

“…Mean CDVA (Snellen equivalent) 20/22, 20/88 11,12,14,17,24,27,28,30,31,42,44,49,51,78,80,88 (1 d -83 mo) 20/23.5, 20/87*, 8,32,52,54,55,61,71,72,74,81,85,92,93 (1 mo -8 y) CDVA of 20/40 or better 29%, 91% 13,[18][19][20]38,44,[48][49][50]63,64,70,78,80,94 70%, 90% 48,53,56,58,61,87,95 Mean UDVA (Snellen equivalent) 20/65, 20/100 24,…”