Discussion
Our study presents an IOL repositioning technique using scleral sutures.
The patients who had a single-piece, subluxated, out-of-the bag IOL were excluded from the study because the lens was extracted and a secondary implantation using iris claw or SFIOL was performed due to the risk of uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome.6 We have hypothesised that using this technique for single-piece out-of-the bag IOLs, which have stiff and thick haptics, could cause a continuous iris rubbing and inflammation which cause this syndrome. Uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema syndrome was not found in the follow-up of the patients who were included in the study.
We would like to empathise that our technique could be performed as well in 3-pieces luxated IOLs, and although the lens is refixated with two 1.5 mm—from the limbus SF points, the poly(methyl-methacrylate) haptics did not cause excessive iris rubbing.
This fact is supported by the absence of pigment or inflammatory deposits on the lens plate.
Due to the fact that 15 of 31 patients had PEX, this study continues to consider this syndrome as the most common risk factor associated with late IOL-in-the-bag dislocation.
Fifteen patients underwent vitrectomy; 13 underwent only AVPP while a more complete vitrectomy combined with peripheral retinal observation and laser photocoagulation around retinal lattice degeneration, due to intraoperative vitreous chamber bleeding, was performed on two patients.
A dislocated IOL can be repositioned using a limbal or pars plana approach, the latter is the only technique available for IOLs entirely dislocated in the vitreous cavity. A benefit of this approach is the management of potential coexisting retinal complications; on the other hand, the limbal approach, with or without AVPP, may be sufficient in cases where the IOL is partially dislocated in the posterior chamber; and it avoids the complications of the pars plana entry, such as postoperative hypotony and endophthalmitis.
In a recent retrospective study,7 visual outcomes and complications of patients with SFIOLs and either anterior vitrectomy (AV) (n=36 eyes) or posterior PPV (n=47 eyes) were evaluated. Visual acuity improvement was similar in both groups. Eyes in the SFIOL/AV group were more likely to experience lens dislocation (28%) compared with those in the SFIOL/PPV group (9%) (p=0.036). Patients in the PPV group were more likely to experience a myopic shift and had a higher rate of IOL capture (23%) compared with the AV group (3%) (p=0.01). However, similarly to our study, this is a retrospective analysis and biases are inherent to this design. In our study, we decided to perform PPV only in two cases in whom vitreous chamber bleeding was detected intraoperatively. In our study, only two patients had postoperative decentration even though AVPP was carried out on 13 patients, and moreover, none of the patients had IOL capture.
Because of the fact that scleral flap creation is not performed and there is no IOL removal but only repositioning, our technique is carried out in no more than 30 min.
Furthermore, it may cause less astigmatism because we perform the procedure in a closed chamber without carrying out the large corneal incisions, which are needed in the case of IOL substitution.
Moreover, the closed chamber approach maintained with a valved-trocar can help the surgeon due to the fact that we have less IOP fluctuations, caused by BSS and OVD exit.
The needles are inserted into the anterior chamber through a 25 G trocar positioned inside a limbal corneal paracentesis; particular care must be taken when the needle is inserted, and it is useful to perform little backward and forward movements to ensure that you are inside the trocar lumen. If the needle plugs through the trocar plastic valves, it can be impossible to move the needle smoothly inside the eye and then to perform the operation; if this complication occurs it is sufficient to remove the trocar from the paracentesis, remove the plastic valves with two forceps and, then, free the needle; then the trocar could be reinserted, and the needle could be passed again through it. Furthermore, it is possible to use non-valved trocars but the anterior chamber could be less stable due to BSS leakage.
In the case of a 3-piece IOL, the anchor point is at the maximal loop concavity; on the other hand, in the case of a mono-piece IOL (eg, in SA60AT (Alcon, surgical) the anchorage is at the terminal button which, due to its shape, stops the Prolene suture from sliding.
It is important to knot the Prolene suture ends only after they are tensioned in order to control the IOL centring; in fact, centring regulation can be obtained only by tensioning and relaxing the Prolene along the horizontal meridian before the sutures are tied.
In the follow-up, we have not faced any clinically detectable lens tilting. The two SF points have created a good stability of the refixated IOL. Furthermore, both in in-the-bag and out-of the bag subluxations, the presence of the residual capsular bag in the first case or the posterior capsule in the second case increases IOL stability. Our technique could be used in luxated IOL as well, although after vitrectomy and capsular bag removal, we can risk more IOL tilting.
In the case of non-sufficient mydriasis, it is useful to use iridal retractors or a malyugin ring in order to visualise the IOL loop, due to the fact that it is preferable to not move the IOL inappropriately in order to avoid vitreous prolapse.
We used Prolene sutures due to their non-absorbable properties; their duration and lysis time have been described in numerous papers. In a retrospective analysis of 63 eyes with SFIOLs affixed to the sclera with 10–0 polypropylene, two eyes (3%) developed IOL dislocation secondary to suture breakage at 15 and 54 months postoperative time.8
Malta and colleagues9 reported a similar rate of suture breakage and IOL dislocation in a cohort of 105 eyes that underwent combined perforating keratoplasty with SFIOL implantation using 10–0 polypropylene sutures. They observed suture breakage in two eyes (2%) at 5 and 8 years after the procedure; McAllister and colleagues reported five cases of Prolene breakage in eyes that underwent SFIOLs after 4.9 years.10
Buckley11 evaluated the use of 10–0 polypropylene for SFIOLs in children; in his series, 4 out of 26 patients (15%) experienced IOL dislocation secondary to suture breakage at a mean of 5.6 years following the initial surgery.
Pham-Duy and Hoder12 examined five explanted 3-piece posterior chamber lenses using a scanning electron microscope to determine the changes. The intraocular time of the lenses varied from 1 week to 3 years. The polypropylene loops showed superficial cracks in all cases, but only in the curve and the insertion areas. The findings therefore indicated that the morphological changes are more probably caused by mechanical stress than by biological degradation alone.
We hypothesise that our technique, which reduces Prolene friction by the use of an anterior chamber trocar, avoiding the intrastromal suture incarceration, could reduce intraoperative suture wear and give better Prolene durability.
Using our technique, we did not have to create a scleral pocket, after the knot is made the Prolene edges are cut 10 mm long and are positioned under the Tenon capsule and the conjunctiva in order to avoid tissue erosion which could be observed in the case of short, sharp polypropylene ends. We have not found any sign of conjunctival erosion in our patients (see figure 5).
Figure 5Anterior segment photograph showing the polypropylene suture under the conjunctiva after the operation.
Conjunctival erosion, which can be observed in some series of SFIOLs, can increase the risk of endophthalmitis;13–15 due to our suture placement technique, we did not encounter conjunctival erosion nor any case of endophthalmitis.
Moreover, we could perform our technique in eye with a thin sclera (such as myopic eyes) due to the fact that we do not carry out a scleral pocket.
Transcleral fixation of closed loop haptic acrylic posterior chamber IOL in aphakic non-vitrectomised eyes was reported by Agrawaal et al.;14 of 29 eyes of 24 patients treated using this technique, 2 patients had postoperative complications such as glaucoma and macular scarring. We had six patients who experienced postoperative ocular pressure elevation which was resolved with topical therapy without consequences; none of our patients had macular complications.
Although CME is a common complication after IOL repositioning, mostly if iris suture is performed or if postoperative iris chafing is present, only two patients had postoperative CME which was resolved with nepafenac eye drops after 40 and 55 days, respectively; both of these patients had PEX and one underwent VPP during the SF procedure, due to intraoperative posterior bleeding.
Two patients had postoperative decentration, but only one of them had to perform a VPP+secondary IOL implantation because decentration affected the visual axis that was interrupted by the IOL edge.
Corneal endothelial failure which requires posterior lamellar keratoplasty, retinal detachment and choroidal detachment were not observed in our series while many authors describe these complications; for example, Luk and colleagues15 had to face these issues, even though in a larger series of patients (109 eyes).
McAllister and colleagues also experienced major complications which needed further interventions such as retinal detachment, uncontrolled glaucoma, corneal decompensation.10