Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 502
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 88

Comments on: Comparative study of secondary implantation of iris–claw lens and scleral-fixated intraocular lens in terms of visual outcome and complications


Cataract and Glaucoma services, Sankara Eye Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission06-Jan-2022
Date of Decision26-Apr-2022
Date of Acceptance28-Apr-2022
Date of Web Publication18-Jul-2022

Correspondence Address:
Mithun Thulasidas
Cataract and Glaucoma services, Sankara Eye Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu - 641 035
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcor.jcor_3_21

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Thulasidas M. Comments on: Comparative study of secondary implantation of iris–claw lens and scleral-fixated intraocular lens in terms of visual outcome and complications. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2022;10:88

How to cite this URL:
Thulasidas M. Comments on: Comparative study of secondary implantation of iris–claw lens and scleral-fixated intraocular lens in terms of visual outcome and complications. J Clin Ophthalmol Res [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 19];10:88. Available from: https://www.jcor.in/text.asp?2022/10/2/88/351294



Dear Editor,

I read with interest the study by Navya and Hatti[1] in which they compared the visual outcome and complications associated with the implantation of iris–claw intraocular lens (ICIOL) with that of scleral-fixated intraocular lens (SFIOL). The study outcomes showed that ICIOL could be a promising alternative to SFIOL in aphakic eyes with inadequate posterior capsular support. The visual outcome was found to be comparable in both groups, and ICIOL required less surgical time with fewer complications.[1]

The authors stated that ICIOL from Freedom Surgicals was used, which has an A constant of 115. However, the A constant of 115 is meant for anteriorly placed ICIOL. As the authors have implanted the lens retropupillary in the study, ICIOL with an A constant of 117 should have been used which is available with Freedom Surgicals.[2] Thus, it would be beneficial for the readers, if the authors recheck the A constant of retropupillary-fixated ICIOL.

Further, in methodology, the authors did not mention the design of ICIOL, whether it is biconvex or convex–concave-vaulted type. As performing a peripheral iridectomy or iridotomy to prevent pupillary block depends on the design of ICIOL, an explanation on this aspect would be appreciated.[2],[3],[4],[5]

The demographic details of the study groups should have been described in a better way. The etiology details are not clear in both the study groups, though the authors have listed a few causes such as complicated cataract surgery, traumatic lens drop, intraocular lens drop, and iris coloboma.

The authors mentioned about secondary rise of intraocular pressure (IOP) in one patient postoperatively in the ICIOL group with no evidence of clinically significant glaucoma and raised IOP at 1 week in one patient in the SFIOL group with evidence of angle recession. It would have been ideal to have considered IOP as one of the outcome measures of the study (with mean ± standard deviation values). The authors gave the details of only one patient in ICIOL group who had postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) <6/60 as intraoperative endothelial damage. However, one more patient in the ICIOL group and 3 patients in the SFIOL group had postoperative BCVA <6/18. The reason for impaired BCVA (<6/18) in both groups should have been discussed.

I believe that a response from the authors on my comments will add to the translational value of the study and help ophthalmic surgeons to achieve better visual outcomes in aphakic patients with inadequate posterior capsular support.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Navya C, Hatti AS. Comparative study of secondary implantation of iris-claw lens and scleral-fixated intraocular lens in terms of visual outcome and complications. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2020;8:100-3.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Sumitha CV, Pai V, Thulasidas M. Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:597-602.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
3.
Jare NM, Kesari AG, Gadkari SS, Deshpande MD. The posterior iris-claw lens outcome study: 6-month follow-up. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:878-83.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
4.
Sumitha CV, Pai V, Thulasidas M. Reply to comments on: Retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation in aphakic patients. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:175-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Brandner M, Thaler-Saliba S, Plainer S, Vidic B, El-Shabrawi Y, Ardjomand N. Retropupillary fixation of Iris-claw intraocular lens for aphakic eyes in children. PLoS One 2015;10:e0126614.  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

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
    Viewed122    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal