• Users Online: 1842
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 326-329

Comparison of visual outcomes and complications of scleral-fixated intraocular lens and iris-claw lens in aphakic patients

Department of Ophthalmology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vrushali Shende
Plot Number B 22/1, Besides Gandhigram College, MIDC, Wardha - 442 001, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jdmimsu.jdmimsu_171_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: With newer advances and improved techniques for implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOLs) in cataract surgery, the chances of encountering aphakia have reduced significantly. There is still a need to study secondary IOLs to deal with cases involving no or weak capsular support. In such cases, anterior chamber IOLs (ACIOL), iris-claw lens (ICL), or scleral-fixated IOLs (SFIOL) may be used. Excluding ACIOLS by virtue of higher complication rates, this study was done to explore the superiority of SFIOL and ICL. Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the visual outcome and complications of posterior ICL and SFIOL. Materials and Methods: It was a prospective interventional hospital-based study on 26 patients from the ophthalmology outpatient department fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Detailed history and ophthalmological examination was done for all patients and they were divided into two groups based on iris morphology. Of 26 aphakic patients, 13 were implanted with ICL and 13 with SFIOL by a single surgeon, and visual activity and complication rates in both the groups were compared. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in visual acuity (VA) on day 1 postoperative with 6/18 vision on Snellen's chart in ICL-implanted patient and 6/60 in SFIOL-implanted patients. However, best-corrected VA on the 45th day postoperative was comparable in both the groups. Complication-wise SFIOL group showed dreadful complication like retinal detachment, whereas ICL group presented maximally with immediate postoperative iritis and ovalization of the pupil as long-term complication which was harmless. Conclusion: Both ICL and SFIOL are good choices for secondary IOL implantation. Visual outcomes of both the lens were comparable on late follow–up; however, complication-wise ICL is preferred over SFIOL.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded64    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal