Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Refraktive Langzeitergebnisse nach Huckepackimplantation

Refractive long-term results after piggyback intraocular lens implantation

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Huckepacklinsenimplantation stellt eine Alternative zum Linsenaustausch zur Korrektur hoher Anisometropien bei Pseudophakie dar. Wir berichten über unsere bisherigen Erfahrungen.

Patienten und Methode

Im Zeitraum von 2000–2006 wurde bei 27 Patienten auf die vorhandene Kunstlinse eine Huckepacklinse implantiert. 19 Patienten konnten zu einem Nachuntersuchungstermin erscheinen. Die Daten der übrigen 8 Patienten wurden anhand der Patientenakte ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse

Das Alter der Patienten betrug 65±9 Jahre. Die Nachbeobachtungszeit betrug 38±26 Monate. Das präoperative sphärische Äquivalent lag bei den myopen Augen bei –7,86±3,82 dpt, bei den hyperopen Augen bei 1,64±0,74 dpt. Postoperativ lag es bei den myopen Augen bei –1,77±1,82 dpt, bei den hyperopen Augen bei –0,09±0,51 dpt. Die Anisometropie verringerte sich von 4,64±3,3 dpt präoperativ auf 0,9±0,82 dpt postoperativ.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Huckepacklinsenimplantation ist ein effektives und sicheres Verfahren. Vor allem ist es bei länger zurückliegender IOL-Implantation im Vergleich zu IOL-Explantation und Austausch aufgrund geringerer Traumatisierung überlegen.

Abstract

Background

Piggyback lens implantation is an alternative to exchange of the original intraocular lens (IOL) to treat high anisometropia in pseudophakic eyes. We present our results.

Patients and method

A second IOL (piggyback) was implanted in 27 patients from 2000 to 2006. Nineteen patients were clinically investigated late postoperatively, and data for the other eight patients were evaluated from the patients’ files.

Results

The patients were 65±9 years old. Follow-up time was 38±25 months. The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) in the myopic eyes was –7.86±3,82 D and in the hyperopic eyes was 1.64±0.74 D. After surgery, the mean SE in the myopic eyes was –1.77±1.82 D and in the hyperopic eyes was –0.09±0.51 D. Postoperative anisometropia was reduced from 4.64±3.3 D. to 0.9±0.82 D.

Conclusion

Piggyback lens implantation is a safe and effective surgical procedure and is less traumatic than exchange of the original IOL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Baamonde MB (2006) Secondary diffractive bifocal Piggyback intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1938–1943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumeister M, Kohnen T (2006) Scheimpflug measurement of intraocular lens position after piggyback implantation of foldable intraocular lenses in eyes wih high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:2098–2104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang SHL, Lim G (2004) Secondary pigmentary glaucoma associated with piggyback intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2219–2222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donoso R, Rodriguez A (2001) Piggyback implantation using the AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1506–1510

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Eleftheriadis H, Marcantonio J, Duncan G, Liu C (2001) Interlenticular opacification in piggyback Acrysof intraocular lenses:explantation technique and laboratory investigations. Br J Ophthalmol 85:830–836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Eleftheriadis H, Sciscio A, Ismail A, Hull CC (2001) Primary polypseudophakia for cataract surgery in hypermetropic eyes:refractive results and long term stability of the implants within the capsular bag. Br J Ophthalmol 85:1198–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Findl O, Menapace R, Georgopoulos M et al. (2001) Morphological appearance and size of contact zones of piggyback intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gayton JL, Apple DJ, Peng Q et al. (2000) Interlenticular opacification: Clinicopathological correlation of a complication of posterior chamber piggyback intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:330–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gayton JL, Sanders VN (1993) Implanting two posterior chamber intraocular lenses in a case of microphthalmus. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:776–777

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gayton JL, Sanders V, Van Der Karr M, Raanan MG (1997) Piggybacking intraocular implants to correct pseudophakic refractive error. Ophthalmology 106:56–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gills JP (1998) Piggyback minus-power lens implantation in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:566–568

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gills JP (2003) Sutured piggyback toric intraocular lenses to correct high astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:402–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gills MP, Fenzl RE (1999) Minus-power intraocular lenses to correct refractive errors in myopic pseudophakia. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:1205–1208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gills JP, Van Der Karr MA (2002) Correcting high astigmatism with piggyback intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:547–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Habot-Wilner Z, Sachs D, Cahane M et al. (2005) Refractive results with secondary piggyback implantation to correct pseudophakic refractive errors. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:2101–2103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Häberle H, Wirbelauer C, Aurich H, Pham DT (2003) Huckepacklinsenimplantation zur Korrektur einer Anisometropie bei Pseudophakie. Ophthalmologe 100:129–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hull CC, Liu CSC, Sciscio A (1999) Image quality in polypseudophakia for extremely short eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 83:656–663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Iwase T, Tanaka N (2005) Elevated intraocula pressure in secondary piggyback intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1821–1823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Masket S (1998) Piggyback intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:569–570

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McGhee CN, Ormonde S, Kohnen T et al. (2002) The surgical correction of moderate hypermetropia:the management controversy. Br J Ophthalmol 86:815–822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mejia LF (1999) Piggyback posterior chamber multifocal intraocular lenses in anisometropia. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:1682–1684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mittelviefhaus H (1996) Piggyback intraocular lens with exchangeable optic. J Cataract Refract Surg 22:676–681

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Park S, Ressiniotis T, Wood C (2006) Intraocular lens papillary capture after neodymium: YAG laser treatment of interlenticular opacification of posterior chamber piggyback intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1056–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paul RA, Chew HF, Singal N et al. (2004) Pigyback intraocular lens implantation to correct myopic pseudophakic refractive error after penetrating keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:821–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Preußner PR, Wahl J (2000) Konsistente numerische Berechnung der Optik des pseudophaken Auges. Ophthalmologe 97:126–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Preußner PR, Wahl J, Lahdo H, Findl O (2001) Konsistente IOL-Berechnung Ophthalmologe 98:300–304

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shugar JK, Keeler S (2000) Interpseudophakos intraocular lens surface opacification as a late complication of piggyback acrylic posterior chamber lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:448–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shugar JK, Lewis C, Lee A (1996) Implantation of multiple foldable acrylic posterior chamber lenses in the capsular bag for high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 22:1368–1372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Till JS (2001) Piggyback silicone intraocular lenses of opposite power. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:165–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Werner L, Mamalis N, Stevens S et al. (2006) Interlenticular opacification:dual-optic versus piggyback intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:655–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Werner L, Shugar JK, Apple DJ et al. (2000) Opacification of piggyback IOLs associated with an amorphous material attached to interlenticular surfaces. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:1612–1619

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Rudowerstraße 48, Berlin, Deutschland

    B. Moustafa , H. Häberle, C. Wirbelauer & D.T. Pham

Authors
  1. B. Moustafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Häberle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Wirbelauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D.T. Pham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Moustafa .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moustafa , B., Häberle, H., Wirbelauer, C. et al. Refraktive Langzeitergebnisse nach Huckepackimplantation. Ophthalmologe 104, 790–794 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-007-1563-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-007-1563-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation