Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 3124
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 52  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 347

Late recurrent uveitis after phacoemulsification.


Correspondence Address:
Tapan Kumar Samanta


Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 15693340

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Samanta TK. Late recurrent uveitis after phacoemulsification. Indian J Ophthalmol 2004;52:347

How to cite this URL:
Samanta TK. Late recurrent uveitis after phacoemulsification. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2020 Jun 3];52:347. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2004/52/4/347/14547

Dear Editor,

The article by Dr. Saraf[1] describing cases of late uveitis after phacoemulsification was interesting. The possible role of retained lens matter, viscoelastic and metallic dust from the phaco tip have been emphasised. However, certain points need to be clarified.

Same preoperative and postoperative medicines were used for all cases; was the viscoelastic agent the same too? Was there any possibility of cluster depending upon the use of same batch of the viscoelastic or any difference in the method of storage? The viscoelastic was not washed from the capsular bag behind the IOL; a variable retained amount (the situation more compounded if the viscoelastic was not the same in all cases) could cause variable inflammatory reaction in different cases postoperatively. Variable tissue handling during surgery (due to variable pupillary dilatation, etc.) could also be partly responsible.

In the postoperative period, only betamethasone eye drops were used routinely (without any topical antibiotic, one presumes). As a result, the possibility of low grade infective component could not be ruled out, especially when aqueous fluid or material from capsular bag[2] was not cultured in any case. No comment was available on the capsular deposits either, while describing the clinical pictures postoperatively. Suppressing the inflammatory component only, with topical corticosteroids, in a situation of low grade infection could partly explain the recurrent or chronic nature of the problem.

The possible role of debris in the phacoemulsification handsets[3] should also be kept in mind to explain postoperative uveitis, as we have started realising recently.



 
  References Top

1.
Saraf PK. Late recurrent uveitis after phacoemulsification. Indian J Ophthalmol 2004;52:158-59.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Posenauer B, Funk J. Chronic postoperative endophthalmitis caused by Propionibacterium acnes. Eur J Ophthalmol 1992;2:94-97.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Leslie T, Aitken DA, Barrie T, Kirkness CM. Residual debris as a potential cause of post phacoemulsification endophthalmitis. Eye 2003;17:506-12.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

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
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2651    
    Printed96    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded3    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal