BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to establish the incidence of re-enclavation of iris-fixated phakic intraocular lenses in our centre and evaluate outcomes following re-enclavation. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. Single surgeon, hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred and nine patients (1218 eyes) implanted with iris-fixated phakic intraocular lenses between 2000 and 2011. METHODS: Eyes requiring re-enclavation were identified, and outcome measures were evaluated 12 months following re-enclavation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of re-enclavation, uncorrected distance visual acuity and manifest refractive spherical equivalent were measured 12 months following re-enclavation. RESULTS: Twenty-five eyes (2% of eyes overall) of 20 patients required re-enclavation of a dislocated or subluxed phakic intraocular lens. Eight cases (32%) dislocated secondary to trauma and 17 (68%) subluxed spontaneously. No significant difference was detected (P = 0.59) in uncorrected distance visual acuity (logMAR equivalent) 12 months post-re-enclavation (0.18 ± 0.04) compared with that recorded 6 months post-initial uneventful phakic intraocular lens implantation (0.10 ± 0.06). No significant difference was detected (P = 0.95) in mean manifest refractive spherical equivalent 12 months post-re-enclavation (-0.59D ± 0.29D) compared with that recorded 6 months post-initial phakic intraocular lens implantation (-0.57D ± 0.17D). Following re-enclavation, mean endothelial cell count was 2627 ± 101 cells/mm(2) 12 months postoperatively in 16 eyes. This did not differ significantly from that recorded 6 months post-initial phakic intraocular lens implantation in these eyes (P = 1). CONCLUSION: Dislocation and subluxation of iris-fixated phakic intraocular lenses may occur secondary to trauma or spontaneously because of inadequate iris enclavation. Re-enclavation can be carried out successfully with no significant adverse effect on clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moran et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: