|
 |
| LETTER TO THE EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 69
| Issue : 1 | Page : 175 |
|
Comments on: Retropupillary iris - claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients
Tarannum Mansoori
Sita Lakshmi Glaucoma Center, Anand Eye Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| Date of Web Publication | 15-Dec-2020 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Tarannum Mansoori
Anand Eye Institute, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_578_20
How to cite this article:
Mansoori T. Comments on: Retropupillary iris - claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:175 |
How to cite this URL:
Mansoori T. Comments on: Retropupillary iris - claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 16];69:175. Available from: https://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2021/69/1/175/303344 |
Dear Editor,
I read with interest the article on “Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients” by Sumitha et al.[1] In this prospective study, the authors have evaluated the outcomes of retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens (ICIOL) implantation in 36 aphakic eyes with inadequate capsular support.
In this study, Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with schiotz tonometer in all the eyes. It would have been ideal to use the Goldmann applanation tonometer for IOP measurement, as IOP was one of the outcome measures of the study. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured using pachymetry. However, it is not mentioned which pachymeter was used for the measurement – contact or non-contact? Which company ICIOL was implanted is also not mentioned.
Six out of 36 eyes underwent combined surgery, i.e., ICIOL with penetrating keratoplasty. These eyes should have be taken as a separate sub-group for analysis and should not have been combined with the rest of the study participants with surgical aphakia and no corneal pathology. The endothelial cell count measurement is also important in these eyes, which was not carried out. Did any of the eyes have preoperative cystoid macular edema?
The minimum age of the study participant was 13 years in this study. What was the indication for cataract surgery in the child and was the parent consent obtained? These points should be clearly mentioned.
As it was a prospective study, did the patients come for all the follow-up visits, which were scheduled at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months, respectively? It should be mentioned clearly, as even in the prospective study, there is a possibility of the participants not reporting for the scheduled time period and not keeping the appointment.
The authors have not performed peripheral iridotomy (PI) in their study group. However, they have given reference of Jare et al.,[2] where 3/108 eyes had raised IOP, which were managed with neodymium - doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) laser PI, which was obviously indicated for the pupillary block. I recommend that the PI should be performed for all the patients undergoing retropupillary ICIOL, so that pupillary block can be prevented.[3]
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | |  |
| 1. | Sumitha CV, Pai V, Thulasidas M. Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:597-602.  [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 2. | Jare NM, Kesari AG, Gadkari SS, Deshpande MD. The posterior iris claw lens outcome study: 6 month follow up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:878-8. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 3. | Mansoori T, Agraharam SG, Sannapuni S, Balakrishna N, Manwani S. Surgical outcomes of retro-pupillary fixated iris-claw intraocular lens. J Curr Ophthalmol 2020. [article in press]. |
|
.png "Santen")
Search Pubmed for