Advertisement

Outcomes of 23- and 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomies for dislocated intraocular lenses

Original Paper
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the outcome of 23-gauge as compared with 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy (TSV) in the management of dislocated intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Design

Retrospective, non-consecutive, comparative, interventional case series.

Participants

Patients with dislocated intraocular lens who underwent sutureless PPV using either 23-gauge or 25-gauge instruments.

Methods

The patients who presented with a dislocated IOL, underwent TSV with repositioning of the intraocular lens, either in the sulcus or scleral-fixated sutured/glued.

Results

Of the total 61 eyes, 33 (54.09%) underwent 23-gauge TSV and 28 (45.90%) underwent 25-gauge TSV. The mean logMAR BCVA at baseline and 6 months after surgery was 0.8 and 0.46 in the 23-gauge group, and 0.82 and 0.47 in the 25-gauge group. There was no significant difference in logMAR BCVA values between the two groups at any time point of time during the follow-up. The mean postoperative IOP on postoperative day 1 was 14.76 ± 5.4 in 23-gauge group and 17.57 ± 7.9 in the 25-gauge group (p = 0.10). Retinal break was noticed intraoperatively in two cases in 23-gauge group and in three cases in 25-gauge group (p = 0.509). Postoperative complications included IOL decentration in one case of 23-gauge vitrectomy and two cases in 25-gauge group (p = 0.5), cystoid macular edema in four patients in 23-gauge group and six cases of 25-gauge group (p = 0.3) and retinal detachment in one case in each group (p = 0.9).

Conclusions

25-gauge appears to be as safe and as effective as 23-gauge TSV in the management of dislocated intraocular lenses.

Keywords

Dislocated IOLs 23-Gauge vitrectomy 25-Gauge vitrectomy MIVS TSV 

Abbreviations

TSV

Transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy

IOL

Intraocular lens

BCVA

Best-corrected visual acuity

logMAR

Logarithm of minimum angle of resolution

IOP

Intraocular pressure

CME

Cystoid macular edema

PPV

Pars plana vitrectomy

GAT

Goldmann applanation tonometry

PMMA

Polymethyl methacrylate

TSFIOL

Transscleral fixation of intraocular lenses

RD

Retinal detachment

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Steinert RF, Cionni RJ, Osher RH et al (2000) Complications of cataract surgery. In: Albert DM, Jacobiac FA (eds) Principles and practice of ophthalmology, 2nd edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 1551–1598Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith SG, Lindstrom RL (1985) Malpositioned posterior chamber lenses: etiology, prevention, and management. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc 11:584–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smiddy WE (2005) Management of dislocated foldable intraocular lenses. Retina 25:576–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim SS, Smiddy WE, Feuer W, Shi W (2008) Management of dislocated intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 115:1699–1704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar DA, Agarwal A (2013) Glued intraocular lens: a major review on surgical technique and results. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 24:21–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smiddy WE, Ibaz GV, Alfonso E, Flynn HW Jr (1995) Surgical management of dislocated intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 21:64–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekcardt C (2005) Trans-conjunctival suture less 23G vitrectomy. Retina 25:208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spirn MJ (2009) Comparison of 25, 23 and 20G vitrectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:195–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh R, Bhalekar S (2011) Repositioning a dislocated intraocular lens in the ciliary sulcus using 23G suture less vitrectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:438–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kunikata H, Fuse N, Abe T (2011) Fixating dislocated intraocular lens by 25-Gauge vitrectomy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 42:297–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yepez JB, de Yepez JC, Valero A, Arevalo JF (2006) Surgical technique for transscleral fixation of a foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 37:247–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smiddy WE, Flynn HW (1991) Management of dislocatedposterior chamber intraocular lenses. Ophthalomology 98:889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chan CK, Agarwal A, Agarwal S et al (2001) Management of dislocated intraocular implants. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 14:681–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kusuhara S, Ooto S, Kimura D et al (2008) Outcomes of 23- and 25-gauge transconjunctival suture less vitrectomies for idiopathic macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol 92:1261–1264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta OP, Ho AC, Kaiser PK et al (2008) Short-term outcomes of 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 146:193–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson JT et al (2011) Advantages and limitations of small gauge vitrectomy. Surv Ophthalmol 56:162–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lopez-Guajardo L, Dapena I, Teus MA (2008) Dislocated posterior chamber intraocular lens scleral fixation technique through 23-gauge vitrectomy cannulas. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 39:429–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein E (1989) Suture problems (letter). J Catarct Refract Surg 15:116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parolini B, Prigione G, Romanelli F, Cereda G, Sartore M, Pertile G (2010) Postoperative complications and Intraocular pressure in 943 Consecutive cases of 23-gauge Transconjunctival pars plana Vitrectomy with 1-year follow-up. Retina 30:107–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mello MO Jr, Scott IU, Smiddy WE, Flynn HW Jr, Feuer W (2000) Surgical management and outcomes of dislocated intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 107:62–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Apple DJ, Price FW, Gwin T et al (1989) Sutured retro-pupillary posterior chamber intraocular lenses for exchange or secondary implantation. Ophthalmology 96:1241–1247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lubniewski AJ, Holland EJ, Van Meter WS et al (1990) Histologic study of eyes with transsclerally sutured posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 110:237–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flynn HW Jr (1987) Pars plana vitrectomy in the management of subluxed and posteriorly dislocated intraocular lenses. Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 225:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smiddy WE (1989) Dislocated posterior chamber intraocular lens. Arch Ophthalmol 107:1678–1680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priya Bajgai
    • 1
  • Basavraj Tigari
    • 1
  • Ramandeep Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Eye CentrePost-graduate Institute for Medical Education and ResearchChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations