Indications and outcomes for the removal of intraocular lens implants in a retinal surgery practice

Nimesh A. Patel, Nikitha Gangasani, Nicolas A. Yannuzzi, Gustavo Melo, Harry W. Flynn, William E. Smiddy

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons for and clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) removal, with or without exchange, in the setting of retina surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive, interventional case series of patients undergoing IOL removal at an academic referral center performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2013. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, visual acuity (VA), type of IOL, reason for IOL removal, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63 eyes with IOL removal. Of these, 51 (81%) were left aphakic. For cases of IOL opacification or dislocated IOL (56), the decision to remove was made for 35 (63%) during concurrent retinal surgery due to obstruction in visualization. Overall, the most common reason for removal of the IOL was IOL opacities in 42 eyes (67%), followed by nonspecific nature of opacities (n = 19; 45%), oil artifact (n = 17; 40%), opaque nonvascular membranes (n = 4; 10%), and fibrovascular proliferation (n = 2; 5%). Other causes for removal were IOL dislocation (n = 14; 22%), endophthalmitis (n = 7; 11%), and broken IOL haptic (n = 1; 2%). The composition of the 42 IOLs with opacification included 19 (45%) silicone, 14 (33%) unspecified, five (12%) polymethyl methacrylate, and four acrylic (10%). From the 17 IOLs removed due to oil opacification, 15 (83%) were silicone, and two (17%) were unspecified. Postoperative complications included recurrent retinal detachment (n = 13; 21%), hypotony (n = 8; 13%), phthisis bulbi (n = 8; 13%), corneal edema (n = 7; 11%), cystoid macular edema (n = 5; 8%), elevated intraocular pressure (n = 3; 5%), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 3; 5%), hyphema (1; 2%), anterior synechiae (1; 2%), and sub-retinal hemorrhage (1; 2%) The mean (SD) immediate, 3 months, and fnal best-corrected VA in logMAR were 2.18 (0.47), 1.85 (0.82), and 1.97 (0.85). CONCLUSION: The vitreoretinal surgeon must be prepared for IOL removal, especially if IOL opacification and dislocation compromise the view or capability to achieve primary retinal reattachment objectives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)504-508
Number of pages5
JournalOphthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina
Volume50
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Intraocular Lenses
Lens Subluxation
Silicones
Visual Acuity
Oils
Hyphema
Retinal Hemorrhage
Corneal Edema
Vitreous Hemorrhage
Endophthalmitis
Macular Edema
Retinal Detachment
Polymethyl Methacrylate
Intraocular Pressure
Artifacts
Cataract
Retina
Cohort Studies
Referral and Consultation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Indications and outcomes for the removal of intraocular lens implants in a retinal surgery practice. / Patel, Nimesh A.; Gangasani, Nikitha; Yannuzzi, Nicolas A.; Melo, Gustavo; Flynn, Harry W.; Smiddy, William E.

In: Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina, Vol. 50, No. 8, 01.01.2019, p. 504-508.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Patel, Nimesh A. ; Gangasani, Nikitha ; Yannuzzi, Nicolas A. ; Melo, Gustavo ; Flynn, Harry W. ; Smiddy, William E. / Indications and outcomes for the removal of intraocular lens implants in a retinal surgery practice. In: Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina. 2019 ; Vol. 50, No. 8. pp. 504-508.
@article{addcbd1614fb4776b4479f7d9f01954a,
title = "Indications and outcomes for the removal of intraocular lens implants in a retinal surgery practice",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons for and clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) removal, with or without exchange, in the setting of retina surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive, interventional case series of patients undergoing IOL removal at an academic referral center performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2013. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, visual acuity (VA), type of IOL, reason for IOL removal, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63 eyes with IOL removal. Of these, 51 (81{\%}) were left aphakic. For cases of IOL opacification or dislocated IOL (56), the decision to remove was made for 35 (63{\%}) during concurrent retinal surgery due to obstruction in visualization. Overall, the most common reason for removal of the IOL was IOL opacities in 42 eyes (67{\%}), followed by nonspecific nature of opacities (n = 19; 45{\%}), oil artifact (n = 17; 40{\%}), opaque nonvascular membranes (n = 4; 10{\%}), and fibrovascular proliferation (n = 2; 5{\%}). Other causes for removal were IOL dislocation (n = 14; 22{\%}), endophthalmitis (n = 7; 11{\%}), and broken IOL haptic (n = 1; 2{\%}). The composition of the 42 IOLs with opacification included 19 (45{\%}) silicone, 14 (33{\%}) unspecified, five (12{\%}) polymethyl methacrylate, and four acrylic (10{\%}). From the 17 IOLs removed due to oil opacification, 15 (83{\%}) were silicone, and two (17{\%}) were unspecified. Postoperative complications included recurrent retinal detachment (n = 13; 21{\%}), hypotony (n = 8; 13{\%}), phthisis bulbi (n = 8; 13{\%}), corneal edema (n = 7; 11{\%}), cystoid macular edema (n = 5; 8{\%}), elevated intraocular pressure (n = 3; 5{\%}), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 3; 5{\%}), hyphema (1; 2{\%}), anterior synechiae (1; 2{\%}), and sub-retinal hemorrhage (1; 2{\%}) The mean (SD) immediate, 3 months, and fnal best-corrected VA in logMAR were 2.18 (0.47), 1.85 (0.82), and 1.97 (0.85). CONCLUSION: The vitreoretinal surgeon must be prepared for IOL removal, especially if IOL opacification and dislocation compromise the view or capability to achieve primary retinal reattachment objectives.",
author = "Patel, {Nimesh A.} and Nikitha Gangasani and Yannuzzi, {Nicolas A.} and Gustavo Melo and Flynn, {Harry W.} and Smiddy, {William E.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3928/23258160-20190806-05",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "504--508",
journal = "Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina",
issn = "2325-8160",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indications and outcomes for the removal of intraocular lens implants in a retinal surgery practice

AU - Patel, Nimesh A.

AU - Gangasani, Nikitha

AU - Yannuzzi, Nicolas A.

AU - Melo, Gustavo

AU - Flynn, Harry W.

AU - Smiddy, William E.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons for and clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) removal, with or without exchange, in the setting of retina surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive, interventional case series of patients undergoing IOL removal at an academic referral center performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2013. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, visual acuity (VA), type of IOL, reason for IOL removal, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63 eyes with IOL removal. Of these, 51 (81%) were left aphakic. For cases of IOL opacification or dislocated IOL (56), the decision to remove was made for 35 (63%) during concurrent retinal surgery due to obstruction in visualization. Overall, the most common reason for removal of the IOL was IOL opacities in 42 eyes (67%), followed by nonspecific nature of opacities (n = 19; 45%), oil artifact (n = 17; 40%), opaque nonvascular membranes (n = 4; 10%), and fibrovascular proliferation (n = 2; 5%). Other causes for removal were IOL dislocation (n = 14; 22%), endophthalmitis (n = 7; 11%), and broken IOL haptic (n = 1; 2%). The composition of the 42 IOLs with opacification included 19 (45%) silicone, 14 (33%) unspecified, five (12%) polymethyl methacrylate, and four acrylic (10%). From the 17 IOLs removed due to oil opacification, 15 (83%) were silicone, and two (17%) were unspecified. Postoperative complications included recurrent retinal detachment (n = 13; 21%), hypotony (n = 8; 13%), phthisis bulbi (n = 8; 13%), corneal edema (n = 7; 11%), cystoid macular edema (n = 5; 8%), elevated intraocular pressure (n = 3; 5%), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 3; 5%), hyphema (1; 2%), anterior synechiae (1; 2%), and sub-retinal hemorrhage (1; 2%) The mean (SD) immediate, 3 months, and fnal best-corrected VA in logMAR were 2.18 (0.47), 1.85 (0.82), and 1.97 (0.85). CONCLUSION: The vitreoretinal surgeon must be prepared for IOL removal, especially if IOL opacification and dislocation compromise the view or capability to achieve primary retinal reattachment objectives.

AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons for and clinical outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) removal, with or without exchange, in the setting of retina surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-comparative, consecutive, interventional case series of patients undergoing IOL removal at an academic referral center performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2013. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, visual acuity (VA), type of IOL, reason for IOL removal, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The study cohort included 63 eyes with IOL removal. Of these, 51 (81%) were left aphakic. For cases of IOL opacification or dislocated IOL (56), the decision to remove was made for 35 (63%) during concurrent retinal surgery due to obstruction in visualization. Overall, the most common reason for removal of the IOL was IOL opacities in 42 eyes (67%), followed by nonspecific nature of opacities (n = 19; 45%), oil artifact (n = 17; 40%), opaque nonvascular membranes (n = 4; 10%), and fibrovascular proliferation (n = 2; 5%). Other causes for removal were IOL dislocation (n = 14; 22%), endophthalmitis (n = 7; 11%), and broken IOL haptic (n = 1; 2%). The composition of the 42 IOLs with opacification included 19 (45%) silicone, 14 (33%) unspecified, five (12%) polymethyl methacrylate, and four acrylic (10%). From the 17 IOLs removed due to oil opacification, 15 (83%) were silicone, and two (17%) were unspecified. Postoperative complications included recurrent retinal detachment (n = 13; 21%), hypotony (n = 8; 13%), phthisis bulbi (n = 8; 13%), corneal edema (n = 7; 11%), cystoid macular edema (n = 5; 8%), elevated intraocular pressure (n = 3; 5%), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 3; 5%), hyphema (1; 2%), anterior synechiae (1; 2%), and sub-retinal hemorrhage (1; 2%) The mean (SD) immediate, 3 months, and fnal best-corrected VA in logMAR were 2.18 (0.47), 1.85 (0.82), and 1.97 (0.85). CONCLUSION: The vitreoretinal surgeon must be prepared for IOL removal, especially if IOL opacification and dislocation compromise the view or capability to achieve primary retinal reattachment objectives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071594781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071594781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3928/23258160-20190806-05

DO - 10.3928/23258160-20190806-05

M3 - Review article

C2 - 31415697

AN - SCOPUS:85071594781

VL - 50

SP - 504

EP - 508

JO - Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina

JF - Ophthalmic Surgery Lasers and Imaging Retina

SN - 2325-8160

IS - 8

ER -