Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses
The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation in Chinese patients. The medical records of all Chinese patients who underwent IOL explantation in Hong Kong Eye Hospital, from January 2008 to March 2013, were reviewed. A total of 98 IOLs were...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International ophthalmology 2015-10, Vol.35 (5), p.679-684 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 684 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 679 |
| container_title | International ophthalmology |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Chan, Tommy C. Y. Lok, Jerry K. H. Jhanji, Vishal Wong, Victoria W. Y. |
| description | The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation in Chinese patients. The medical records of all Chinese patients who underwent IOL explantation in Hong Kong Eye Hospital, from January 2008 to March 2013, were reviewed. A total of 98 IOLs were explanted over the study period. The main reasons for lens removal included lens malposition (71.4 %), isolated uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome (9.1 %), refractive surprise (6.1 %), and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (4.1 %). “In-the-bag” IOL malposition was associated with intraocular complications during cataract extraction (28.9 %) and high myopia (22.2 %). Sulcus implantation of a single-piece acrylic (SPA) IOL resulted in UGH syndrome in all cases, while sulcus-fixated 3-piece lenses had such complication in only 7.1 % of cases. Importantly, the problem persisted despite the removal of the SPA IOL from the ciliary sulcus. Majority of the patients had resolution of the original problems after lens removal or exchange and had the same or improved visual acuity after surgery. Lens malposition was the major indication of intraocular lens explantation in our case series. Resolution of symptoms and visual acuity can be achieved with IOL explantation. Implantation of SPA in ciliary sulcus is not recommended. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1708162529</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3790409731</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a042801d66ee1d63b8a75ea499a852dbb9e5f8109775b36a8431d2ac26004fa43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouq7-AC9S8OKlOknz0XiTxS9Y8KJHCWk71Uo3rUkL-u9N2VUWwUsS3jzzzsxLyAmFCwqgLgMFpVkKlKdaa5mqHTKjQmUpkxnskhlQKVKhgB6QwxDeAUArLffJARM0z7ikM_Ly4AZvu3JsrU9adCHBz761brBD07mkccnirXEYMOmjgm4IV0nV1DX6-J60AX0ssq7akj2GvnMBwxHZq20b8Hhzz8nz7c3T4j5dPt49LK6Xack5G1ILnOVAKykR45kVuVUCLdfa5oJVRaFR1DmN0ytRZNLmPKMVsyWTALy2PJuT87Vv77uPEcNgVk0osY2LYDcGQxXkVDLBdETP_qDv3ehdnG6iYoNMMRUpuqZK34XgsTa9b1bWfxkKZsrerLM3MXszZW-mmtON81issPqt-Ak7AmwNhPjlXtFvtf7X9Rsr_o8u</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1707753727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Chan, Tommy C. Y. ; Lok, Jerry K. H. ; Jhanji, Vishal ; Wong, Victoria W. Y.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chan, Tommy C. Y. ; Lok, Jerry K. H. ; Jhanji, Vishal ; Wong, Victoria W. Y.</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation in Chinese patients. The medical records of all Chinese patients who underwent IOL explantation in Hong Kong Eye Hospital, from January 2008 to March 2013, were reviewed. A total of 98 IOLs were explanted over the study period. The main reasons for lens removal included lens malposition (71.4 %), isolated uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome (9.1 %), refractive surprise (6.1 %), and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (4.1 %). “In-the-bag” IOL malposition was associated with intraocular complications during cataract extraction (28.9 %) and high myopia (22.2 %). Sulcus implantation of a single-piece acrylic (SPA) IOL resulted in UGH syndrome in all cases, while sulcus-fixated 3-piece lenses had such complication in only 7.1 % of cases. Importantly, the problem persisted despite the removal of the SPA IOL from the ciliary sulcus. Majority of the patients had resolution of the original problems after lens removal or exchange and had the same or improved visual acuity after surgery. Lens malposition was the major indication of intraocular lens explantation in our case series. Resolution of symptoms and visual acuity can be achieved with IOL explantation. Implantation of SPA in ciliary sulcus is not recommended.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-5701</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2630</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25183461</identifier><identifier>CODEN: INOPDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Aged ; Cataract Extraction - adverse effects ; Device Removal ; Female ; Hong Kong ; Humans ; Lenses, Intraocular ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Ophthalmology ; Original Paper ; Postoperative Complications - surgery ; Prosthesis Failure ; Retrospective Studies ; Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><ispartof>International ophthalmology, 2015-10, Vol.35 (5), p.679-684</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a042801d66ee1d63b8a75ea499a852dbb9e5f8109775b36a8431d2ac26004fa43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a042801d66ee1d63b8a75ea499a852dbb9e5f8109775b36a8431d2ac26004fa43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25183461$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chan, Tommy C. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lok, Jerry K. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jhanji, Vishal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Victoria W. Y.</creatorcontrib><title>Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses</title><title>International ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation in Chinese patients. The medical records of all Chinese patients who underwent IOL explantation in Hong Kong Eye Hospital, from January 2008 to March 2013, were reviewed. A total of 98 IOLs were explanted over the study period. The main reasons for lens removal included lens malposition (71.4 %), isolated uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome (9.1 %), refractive surprise (6.1 %), and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (4.1 %). “In-the-bag” IOL malposition was associated with intraocular complications during cataract extraction (28.9 %) and high myopia (22.2 %). Sulcus implantation of a single-piece acrylic (SPA) IOL resulted in UGH syndrome in all cases, while sulcus-fixated 3-piece lenses had such complication in only 7.1 % of cases. Importantly, the problem persisted despite the removal of the SPA IOL from the ciliary sulcus. Majority of the patients had resolution of the original problems after lens removal or exchange and had the same or improved visual acuity after surgery. Lens malposition was the major indication of intraocular lens explantation in our case series. Resolution of symptoms and visual acuity can be achieved with IOL explantation. Implantation of SPA in ciliary sulcus is not recommended.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cataract Extraction - adverse effects</subject><subject>Device Removal</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hong Kong</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lenses, Intraocular</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><issn>0165-5701</issn><issn>1573-2630</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouq7-AC9S8OKlOknz0XiTxS9Y8KJHCWk71Uo3rUkL-u9N2VUWwUsS3jzzzsxLyAmFCwqgLgMFpVkKlKdaa5mqHTKjQmUpkxnskhlQKVKhgB6QwxDeAUArLffJARM0z7ikM_Ly4AZvu3JsrU9adCHBz761brBD07mkccnirXEYMOmjgm4IV0nV1DX6-J60AX0ssq7akj2GvnMBwxHZq20b8Hhzz8nz7c3T4j5dPt49LK6Xack5G1ILnOVAKykR45kVuVUCLdfa5oJVRaFR1DmN0ytRZNLmPKMVsyWTALy2PJuT87Vv77uPEcNgVk0osY2LYDcGQxXkVDLBdETP_qDv3ehdnG6iYoNMMRUpuqZK34XgsTa9b1bWfxkKZsrerLM3MXszZW-mmtON81issPqt-Ak7AmwNhPjlXtFvtf7X9Rsr_o8u</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Chan, Tommy C. Y.</creator><creator>Lok, Jerry K. H.</creator><creator>Jhanji, Vishal</creator><creator>Wong, Victoria W. Y.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses</title><author>Chan, Tommy C. Y. ; Lok, Jerry K. H. ; Jhanji, Vishal ; Wong, Victoria W. Y.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a042801d66ee1d63b8a75ea499a852dbb9e5f8109775b36a8431d2ac26004fa43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cataract Extraction - adverse effects</topic><topic>Device Removal</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hong Kong</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lenses, Intraocular</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Visual Acuity - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chan, Tommy C. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lok, Jerry K. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jhanji, Vishal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Victoria W. Y.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chan, Tommy C. Y.</au><au>Lok, Jerry K. H.</au><au>Jhanji, Vishal</au><au>Wong, Victoria W. Y.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses</atitle><jtitle>International ophthalmology</jtitle><stitle>Int Ophthalmol</stitle><addtitle>Int Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>679</spage><epage>684</epage><pages>679-684</pages><issn>0165-5701</issn><eissn>1573-2630</eissn><coden>INOPDR</coden><abstract>The aim of the study was to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation in Chinese patients. The medical records of all Chinese patients who underwent IOL explantation in Hong Kong Eye Hospital, from January 2008 to March 2013, were reviewed. A total of 98 IOLs were explanted over the study period. The main reasons for lens removal included lens malposition (71.4 %), isolated uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome (9.1 %), refractive surprise (6.1 %), and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (4.1 %). “In-the-bag” IOL malposition was associated with intraocular complications during cataract extraction (28.9 %) and high myopia (22.2 %). Sulcus implantation of a single-piece acrylic (SPA) IOL resulted in UGH syndrome in all cases, while sulcus-fixated 3-piece lenses had such complication in only 7.1 % of cases. Importantly, the problem persisted despite the removal of the SPA IOL from the ciliary sulcus. Majority of the patients had resolution of the original problems after lens removal or exchange and had the same or improved visual acuity after surgery. Lens malposition was the major indication of intraocular lens explantation in our case series. Resolution of symptoms and visual acuity can be achieved with IOL explantation. Implantation of SPA in ciliary sulcus is not recommended.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>25183461</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0165-5701 |
| ispartof | International ophthalmology, 2015-10, Vol.35 (5), p.679-684 |
| issn | 0165-5701 1573-2630 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1708162529 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Aged Cataract Extraction - adverse effects Device Removal Female Hong Kong Humans Lenses, Intraocular Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Ophthalmology Original Paper Postoperative Complications - surgery Prosthesis Failure Retrospective Studies Visual Acuity - physiology |
| title | Intraocular lens explantation in Chinese patients: different patterns and different responses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T21%3A35%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Intraocular%20lens%20explantation%20in%20Chinese%20patients:%20different%20patterns%20and%20different%20responses&rft.jtitle=International%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Chan,%20Tommy%20C.%20Y.&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=679&rft.epage=684&rft.pages=679-684&rft.issn=0165-5701&rft.eissn=1573-2630&rft.coden=INOPDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10792-014-9996-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3790409731%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1707753727&rft_id=info:pmid/25183461&rfr_iscdi=true |