Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 14
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
ARTICLES
Year : 1979  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 21

Uveal response to intra-ocular lens implant


9, Sadanand Wadi V.P. Road, Mumbai-400016, India

Correspondence Address:
S M Sathe
9, Sadanand Wadi V.P. Road, Mumbai-400016
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:
Sathe S M. Uveal response to intra-ocular lens implant. Indian J Ophthalmol 1979;27:21

How to cite this URL:
Sathe S M. Uveal response to intra-ocular lens implant. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1979 [cited 2020 Apr 7];27:21. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?1979/27/4/21/32561

Table 1

Click here to view
Table 1

Click here to view
30 cases with Shah's two loop iridocap­sular intraocular lens implants were studied for the uveal response. The following observations were noted in a follow up of 4 to 18 months.


  Observations Top


(1) No change in 18 cases.

(2) Pigment deposition on the implant which later on cleared up in 8 cases. Gonioscopy revealed pigment in the angle in two cases, but none of them had raised intraocular tension.

(3) Atrophic changes in the sphincter muscle were noted at the point of contact of the pupil with the loops in 6 cases. Stormal atrophic patches were noted in 2 cases. No vision diminution was noted.

(4)Exudation: Mild form (+) was present in 7 cases where the 4 fixation points of loops to the implant showed collection of exudates for a short period of one week or so. No keratic precipitates were seen, (+ +)­- moderate exudation was noted in 3 cases where in­addition to the above spots there was exudation along the pupillary border. This also cleared up by 10th post operative day.

(+++) Severe exudation was present in two cases where the anterior chamber showed a hypopyon and response to treatment was poor, hence the implants had to be removed.


  Discussion Top


Uveal reaction to an implant is probably due to one or more of the following factors:

(1) Reaction to the material used in preparation of the implant

(a) Polymethylmethacrylate (Acrylic), b) Titanium +Platinum Loops, c) Cyanocrylate gum used for fixing the loops to the implant, (d) The chemical used for sterilisation of implant.

Fortunately all are inert and unlikely to cause a problem.

(2) Reaction due to mechanical trauma. The contact of the metal loops with the iris tissue and the sphincter muscle.

(3) Another way in which the implant may set up a reaction is by an immunological route. It is possible that both cell-mediated and Immoral immunity may be involved in the reaction.


  Summary Top


A follow up of 30 cases of lens implants for uveal reaction is presented.



 
 
    Tables

  [Table - 1]



 

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
Observations
Discussion
Summary
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed943    
    Printed34    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal