Alsetri Hasan, Masket Samuel, Fram Nicole, Sandoval Hector, Cabang Julieanne, McLachlan Jessie
From the Advanced Vision Care, Los Angeles, California (Alsetri, Masket, Fram, Cabang, McLachlan); Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angles, California (Masket, Fram); SUNY Downstate Medical School, Brooklyn, New York (Sandoval).
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023 May 1;49(5):499-503. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001138.
To assess whether there are added risks when performing intraocular lens (IOL) exchange in the setting of an open posterior capsule (OPC) when compared with a closed posterior capsule (CPC) IOL exchange.
Private practice, Los Angeles, California.
Nonrandomized and unmasked retrospective chart review.
Eyes undergoing IOL exchange solely to relieve optical symptoms, with open or intact posterior capsules, were included. Eyes undergoing IOL exchange due to IOL malposition or dislocation were excluded. Eyes with preexisting, uncontrolled glaucoma and inflammation and eyes with a visual potential worse than 20/40 (Snellen) were also excluded. The main outcome measures were the postoperative complications compared between the OPC and CPC groups.
90 eyes of 75 patients undergoing IOL exchange were included in this study; 38/90 eyes had an OPC, and 52/90 eyes had a CPC. 3/38 in the OPC group and 2/52 in the CPC group experienced worsening intraocular pressure control. 1/38 in the OPC group experienced chronic inflammation. 2/38 in the OPC group and 2/52 in the CPC group experienced cystoid macular edema. 1/52 in the CPC group experienced a retinal tear. Statistically or clinically significant differences in postoperative complications between the OPC and CPC groups were not found.
In the hands of an experienced surgeon, IOL exchange with an OPC appear red to be just as safe as IOL exchange with a CPC; when deemed necessary, experienced surgeons may perform an IOL exchange safely in the presence of an OPC.
