Intraocular Lens (IOL) Exchange Procedure in Refractive Surprise After Ten Years of Cataract Surgery
Downloads
Introduction: Postoperative refractive surprises may manifest following cataract surgery. A residual refraction difference of > 2.0 D after cataract surgery was considered a refractive surprise. Treating refractive error after cataract surgery includes non-surgical and surgical options. The objective is to report clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) exchange with ciliary sulcus placement technique to manage refractive surprise. Case Presentation: A female patient aged 70 years reported experiencing blurred vision in her right eye (RE) for the past two years. History of RE cataract surgery ten years ago, however, she only had control 1-2 times after surgery. After that, the patient underwent cataract surgery on the left eye (LE), and then she complained that her RE was getting blurry. Her RE's visual acuity (VA) was 1/60 with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) S-8.00 C-1.00 X100° to 6/10, and her LE was 7/10 with BCVA C-0.75 X60° to 10/10. The anterior segment examination of the RE was a 3-piece sulcus intraocular lens with complete continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) intact anterior capsule, posterior capsule rupture, and the LE was in the bag IOL. Ultrasound examination of the RE revealed posterior staphyloma. She was diagnosed with OD refractive surprise, pseudophakia, posterior staphyloma, and OS pseudophakia. She underwent IOL exchange surgery on her RE. Post-operatively, the visual acuity of the RE was 7/45 using the Snellen chart. Three months post-op, the BCVA of RE was 10/10. Conclusions: In well-prepared cataract surgery, unexpected refractive outcomes such as a refractive surprise can be prevented. IOL exchange with ciliary sulcus placement technique is a treatment option for refractive surprise associated with posterior capsule rupture, and it has a good outcome.
Brogan K, Diaper CJM, Rotchford AP. Cataract surgery refractive outcomes: Representative standards in a National Health Service setting. British J Ophthalmol 2019;103:539–543. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312209.
Lundström M. Despite Advances, “Refractive Surprise” Still Lurks: EUREQUO Analysis Identifies Risk Factors for Refractive Outcome Errors. Refractive Surprise: The Big Taboo, West Sussex: Rayner; 2015.
Lundström M, Dickman M, Henry Y, Manning S, Rosen P, Tassignon M-J, et al. Risk factors for refractive error after cataract surgery: Analysis of 282 811 cataract extractions reported to the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018;44:447–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.031.
Alio JL, Abdelghany AA, Fernández-Buenaga R. Management of residual refractive error after cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2014;25:291–297. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000067.
Shalchi Z, Restori M, Flanagan D, Watson M. Managing refractive surprise. Focus: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Quaterly Magazine 2018.
Ladi J. Prevention and correction of residual refractive errors after cataract surgery. Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology and Research 2017;5:45. https://doi.org/10.4103/2320-3897.195311.
Ohno-Matsui K, Jonas JB. Posterior staphyloma in pathologic myopia. Prog Retin Eye Res 2019;70:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.12.001.
Zheng F, Wong C, Sabanayagam C, Cheung Y, Matsumura S, Chua J, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and impact of posterior staphyloma diagnosed from wide-field optical coherence tomography in Singapore adults with high myopia. Acta Ophthalmol 2021;99. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14527.
Randleman JB, Ahmed IIK, editors. Intraocular Lens Surgery. Intraocular Lens Surgery, Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1055/b-0036-134471.
Khoramnia R, Auffarth G, Łabuz G, Pettit G, Suryakumar R. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery. Diagnostics 2022;12:243. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020243.
Sáles CS, Manche EE. Managing residual refractive error after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:1289–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.05.001.
Jin GJC, Merkley KH, Crandall AS, Jones YJ. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus lens-based surgery for correcting residual refractive error after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:562–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.11.040.
Alio JL, Abdelghany AA, Fernández-Buenaga R. Enhancements after cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2015;26:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000111.
Karjou Z, Jafarinasab M-R, Seifi M-H, Hassanpour K, Kheiri B. Secondary piggyback intraocular lens for management of residual ametropia after cataract surgery. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2021. https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v16i1.8244.
Patel V, Pakravan P, Lai J, Watane A, Mehra D, Eatz TA, et al. Intraocular lens exchange: Indications, comparative outcomes by technique, and complications. Clinical Ophthalmology 2023;Volume 17:941–951. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S399857.
Roelofs K, Rudnisky C. In-the-bag intraocular lens exchange 13 years after refractive lens extraction. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2016;51:e161–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.06.002.
Copyright (c) 2024 Rizna Audina, Alvi Laili Zahrah, Dini Dharmawidiarini, Sahata P. H. Napitupulu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Vision Science and Eye Health Journal by Universitas Airlangga is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal allows the author to hold the copyright of the article without restrictions.
The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
The legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA).
The Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA) license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the conditions that the creator is appropriately credited and that any derivative work is made available under "the same, similar or a compatible license”. Other than the conditions mentioned above, the editorial board is not responsible for copyright violations.