RESUMO
Purpose: To describe the long-term outcome after intraocular lens (IOL) exchange for IOL-opacification with a focus on any occurring complications. Patients and Methods: Patients with an IOL exchange for opacified IOLs (Lentis LS-502-1) were identified. Medical records and information from the treating ophthalmologists were reviewed. Visual outcomes and any occurring complications after the IOL exchange were analyzed. Results: IOL exchange was performed in 48 eyes of 46 patients and significantly improved best-corrected distance visual acuity from 0.42 ± 0.32 logMar (mean ± SD) in opacified lenses to 0.25 ± 0.28 logMar after IOL exchange. Nine of the 48 eyes (19%) underwent 11 further surgical procedures for complications due to four indications: IOL dislocation (n = 2, 4%), retinal detachment (RD) (n = 6, 12%), epiretinal membrane (n = 2, 4%), and pupillary block (n = 1, 2%). Three eyes (6%) developed a temporarily elevated intraocular pressure. Temporary postoperative cystoid macular edema was found in 2 eyes (4%). Conclusion: IOL exchange can restore vision owing to IOL opacification in most cases. Nonetheless, IOL exchange is not an easy or risk-free procedure. This may lead to sight-threatening complications, even in eyes without predisposing ocular comorbidities.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To identify potential risk factors related to the opacification of a hydrophilic-hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) model. SETTING: University Hospital Regensburg, Department of Ophthalmology, Regensburg, Germany. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: All patients with a Lentis LS-502-1 IOL implanted at the Department of Ophthalmology were identified. Existing medical records and information from the treating ophthalmologists were reviewed to determine the IOL status (clear or opacified). Potential risk factors were analyzed using binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 223 IOLs of 199 patients were included. Sixty-seven (30.0%) opacified (calcified) IOLs were identified and compared with a control group of 156 IOLs. Statistical analyses revealed age at IOL implantation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, P = .012) to be associated with an increased risk of calcification. Posterior capsulotomy (OR = 0.45, P = .011) was found to have a protective influence. No other ophthalmic or systemic condition showed a significant association. Mean corrected distance visual acuity diminished significantly under opacification from 0.21 ± 0.25 logarithm of the correct minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) to 0.42 ± 0.32 logMAR (P < .001). IOL exchange in 55 of 67 cases at 45.8 ± 20.5 months after initial implantation yielded significant visual recovery (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age at implantation might be a risk factor of IOL calcification, whereas posterior capsulotomy might be a protective factor. Calcification of the LS-502-1 IOL might be caused by the interaction of 3 main factors: IOL material traits, manufacturing-associated contamination, and patients' individual factors altering intraocular ion concentrations.