Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2127
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
ARTICLES
Year : 1970  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 185-186

Bilateral phaco-anaphylaxis after couching


Muslim University Institute of Ophthalmology, Gandhi Eye Hospital, Aligarh, India

Correspondence Address:
O P Ahuja
Muslim University Institute of Ophthalmology, Gandhi Eye Hospital, Aligarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ahuja O P, Kaothalkar M S. Bilateral phaco-anaphylaxis after couching. Indian J Ophthalmol 1970;18:185-6

How to cite this URL:
Ahuja O P, Kaothalkar M S. Bilateral phaco-anaphylaxis after couching. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1970 [cited 2020 May 27];18:185-6. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?1970/18/4/185/35640

Lens-induced uveitis is a well recognized phenomenon. One of the clinical manifestations of such a reac­tion, e.g. development of lens-induced uveitis in the unoperated eye following an extra capsular lens extraction in the contra-lateral eye, was first recognized by Straub[4]. Courtney[1] reported seven cases of lens-induced uveitis in unope­rated eves in similar circumstances. Similar cases have been reported by other workers and the term 'Bilateral Phaco-anaphylaxis' has been assigned to these.

The present case report is of interest in view of the reaction developing after a couching operation. To date, authors have not seen a report of bilateral phaco-anaphylaxis following this pro­cedure.


  Case Report Top


A sixty-year-old male was admitted to this hospital in December 1965, with the complaints of rapid appearance of pain, redness and marked loss of vision in the left eye for 20 days. There was a history of couching operation in the right eye, performed five months ear­lier. Following the operation, the eye remained red and painful for a few weeks, and the vision was completely lost. Since then there had been occa­sional redness and pain in that eye with intervals of quiet eye.

On examination, right eye (couched) showed a mild conjunctival congestion with slightly hazy cornea, deep anterior chamber, deformed pupil and a few organized exudates in the pupillary area. The couched lens could be made out in the lower part of vitreous which was also hazy due to opacities. Digital­ly, the ocular tension was markedly low and perception of light was absent.

Left eye (unoperated) had an intense conjunctival and ciliary congestion. Cornea was slightly hazy due to corneal oedema, moderate and large sized kera­tic precipitates were present. The anter­ior chamber was shallow with an in­tense aqueous flare. Iris showed mark­ed oedema, and pupil was occluded with exudates.

Because of the history of trauma to the lens of the contra-lateral eye, deve­lopment of acute anterior uveitis with large keratic precipitates (mixed uvei­tis), a presumptive diagnosis of phaco­anaphylaxis was made. Skin reaction of the patient to an intra-dermal injection of 0.1., cc of stock lens antigen showed an erythema of i6 mm. with moderate amount of induration, after 48 hours. Similarly, patient's serum was tested for anti-lens antibodies by immunological technique of Oudin[2] on sixth day. Sub­sequently, similar results were obtained when the patient's skin hypersensitivity and anti-lens antibodies were tested with the antigen prepared from patient's own lens.

The patient was treated with inten­sive local mydriatics and corticosteroids supplemented with systemic acetazola­mide. Surgical intervention was plan­ned to perform a lens extraction in the left eye. A large sector iridectomy was performed and an extracapsular lens ex­traction was made. As the capsule was found to be ruptured, an intracapsular extraction was not possible. The anter­ior chamber was thoroughly washed with sterile normal saline.

Post-operatively, there was a severe uveitis which was controlled in three weeks after liberal use of local as well as systemic corticosteroids. At the time of discharge, though the eye was quiet, the iris coloboma was partially occluded with exudates. Visual acuity was only Hand Movements. He was advised to use atropine and corticorteroids locally. Six weeks after discharge, the patient came for a check-up. The eye was quiet and visual acuity improved to a/6o with correction. Anterior vitreous was hazy showing multiple dot-like pig­mented and non-pigmented opacities. Fundus details were not clearly visible.

Histopathology of the piece of iris removed at operation, showed dilatation and congestion of iris vessels with round cell infiltration of the otroma. The cellu­lar infiltration consisted predominantly of plasma cells, suggestive of immune reaction.


  Comments Top


Couching procedure for cataract is still practised at several places in rural India. Sood and Retnaraj [3] reported a series of 115 cases encountered in the hospital in about two years time. Secondary glaucoma and iritis (in the same eye) were found to be the com­monest complications. No case of bila­teral phaco-anaphylaxis was seen.

In the present case the clinical picture was suggestive of bilateral phaco-ana­phylaxis and the diagnosis was support­ed by immunological tests. Histopatho­logy of iris was also consistent with the diagnosis. It is our contention that at the time of couching, the lens was in­jured and the escaped lens proteins sen­sitized the uveal tissue of both eyes. A spontaneous small rupture in the cap­sule of the other eye triggered the anti­gen-antibody reaction responsible for the picture described.


  Summary Top


A clinical diagnosis of bilateral phaco­anaphylaxis was made in a case follow­ing a couching operation. The diagnosis was supported by immunologic tests and histopathology.

The possible sequence of events in the case has been suggested.

This is the first case reported in lite­rature showing a bilateral phaco-ana­phylaxis following couching.

 
  References Top

1.
Courtney, R. H. (1942) - quoted by Harrington, O. D., (1944) Amer. J. Ophth. 27 93.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Oudin, J. (1947)-Bull, Soc. Chim. Biol. (Paris). 29: 140.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Sood, N. N. and Ratnaraj, A. (1968) - Amer. J. Ophth. 66: 687.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Straud, M. (1916) - quoted by Woods, A. C. (1959): Amer. J Ophthal. 48: 463.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Case Report
Comments
Summary
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1395    
    Printed21    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal