Skip to main content
Download PDF

Outcomes of retropupillary iris claw lens implantation in patients with intraocular lens dislocation and low (less than 1000 cells/mm2) corneal endothelial cell density

BMC Ophthalmology volume 24, Article number: 375 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation is a common complication of cataract surgery. Dislocated IOLs often require surgical intervention due to the potentially severe risks of leaving this condition untreated. If a patient with extremely low corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) presents with IOL dislocation, the surgeon faces a crucial dilemma of choosing the most optimal surgical treatment option. We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens (R-IOL) implantation in patients with IOL dislocation and extremely low (< 1000 cells/mm2) ECD.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of nine patients (all men) whose pre-operative ECD was < 1000 cells/mm2 and who underwent R-IOL implantation due to intraocular subluxation or total dislocation into the vitreous cavity between 2014 and 2020. We evaluated corneal endothelial function and visual outcomes after surgery.

Results

Nine patients were included in this study. The mean age at diagnosis was 64.89 ± 7.15 years (range 57–76 years), and the follow-up duration was 37.93 ± 23.72 months (range 18.07–89.07 months). No patients developed bullous keratopathy during follow-up. Compared to the initial ECD, corneal thickness (CT), coefficient variation of cell area (CV) and percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX), there was no statistically significant decrease in the ECD, CV, and HEX at last follow-up (P = 0.944, 0.778, 0.445, 0.443). There was significant improvement in the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at the last follow-up (average 0.13 logMAR, 20/27 Snellen) compared to the pre-operative mean UDVA (average 1.09 logMAR, 20/250 Snellen) (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

R-IOL implantation did not result in a statistically significant decline in corneal endothelial function in patients with preoperatively low ECD, and it significantly improved the mean UDVA postoperatively. R-IOL implantation appears to be a safe and effective treatment modality for intraocular lens dislocation in patients with low ECD (< 1000 cells/mm²); however, long-term follow-up studies are warranted to corroborate these findings.

Peer Review reports

Background

Posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation is one of the most common late complications after cataract surgery [1]. Its incidence has been increasing over the past decades [1,2,3,4,5]. Because of the potential risk of decreased visual acuity, increased intraocular pressure, retinal detachment, and vitreous hemorrhage [2,3,4,5,6], dislocated IOLs often require surgical intervention. Secondary IOL scleral fixation has been a conventional treatment of choice; however, it requires advanced surgical skills and a longer operation time [7] and has the potential of causing suture-related complications, such as suture erosions, tilted lens, and choroidal and suprachoroidal hemorrhage [8]. To avoid such concerns, iris claw lenses with anterior or retropupillary implantations have been developed as alterative surgical options.

Many reports mention anterior chamber intraocular lens (ACIOL) implantation, wherein the IOL positions closer to the cornea have an increased risk of corneal endothelial cell damage and bullous keratopathy [9, 10]. Unlike that of ACIOL, the position of the retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens (R-IOL) is similar to the actual anatomical position, and significant endothelial cell loss after the surgery is not noted [11,12,13,14]. When the endothelial cell density (ECD) drops below 500 cells/mm2, dysfunction is likely, and corneal decompensation may occur, leading to chronic corneal edema and eventually bullous keratopathy [15]. Thus, if a patient with extremely low ECD presents with IOL dislocation, the surgeon faces a crucial dilemma of choosing the most optimal surgical treatment option. A treating surgeon must perform the most minimally invasive procedure to minimize ECD loss, while preserving the patient’s vision by successfully removing the IOL and fixating a secondary IOL. At times, surgeons might choose not to perform surgery at all if the risk/benefit ratio is deemed too high. In such circumstances, R-IOL could be considered as a valuable option, since its implantation is minimally invasive and required less surgical time compared to other suture fixations, thus minimizing potential endothelial cell damage in already compromised corneas.

There have been no reports on the efficacy and safety of R-IOLs in eyes with extremely low ECD. The aim of the present study was to describe the surgical outcomes of R-IOL (iris claw Artisan Aphakia Model 205, Ophtec BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) implantation in patients with IOL dislocation whose pre-operative ECD was < 1000 cells/mm2.

Methods

This retrospective case series study was conducted at Gangnam Severance Hospital, which is affiliated with Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, and ethics approval was obtained from the Gangnam Severance Hospital Institutional Review Board (No. 3-2022-0225). The need for informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design of the study.

We reviewed the medical and operative records of all patients at our hospital who underwent R-IOL (iris claw Artisan Aphakia Model 205, Ophtec BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) implantation due to intraocular subluxation or total dislocation into the vitreous cavity between 2014 and 2020. The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) pre-operative ECD was < 1000 cells/mm2, (2) IOL was either subluxated or totally dislocated to the vitreous cavity, (3) R-IOL implantation and trans-pars plana vitrectomy were performed, and (4) follow-up duration was > 12 months. The following clinical characteristics were assessed for the study participants: (1) demographic data, (2) presence of symptoms, (3) cause of initial IOL insertion, (4) previous operation method for IOL insertion, (5) uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and/or best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) both before and after surgery, (6) intraocular pressure (IOP) before and after the operation, and (7) corneal endothelial function data, which included pre- and post-operative measurements of ECD, corneal thickness (CT), efficient variation of cell area (CV), and the percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX). Vision was measured using a 6 m-Decimal chart, and responses were converted to Snellen and logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) values for statistical analysis. For non-numerical visual acuity, the following logMAR values were used for statistical calculation: 2.00 for count fingers (CF), 2.30 for hand movements (HM), 2.60 for light perception (LP), and 2.90 for no LP (NLP). IOP was measured using a noncontact tonometer. Biometric measurements were obtained using a ZEISS IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss AG; Heidenheim, Germany), and IOL calculations were performed with the SRK/T formula using an A-constant of 116.9. ECD was calculated automatically using a specular microscope (CellChek XL, Konan Medical USA Inc., Irvine, CA, USA).

Under local or general anesthesia, a 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy was performed in all patients. For local anesthesia, 1.5 ml of 2% lidocaine HCl and epinephrine (1:100,000) (Yuhan, Seoul, Korea) was injected into Tenon’s capsule. For mydriasis, two to three drops of 0.5% tropicamide and 0.5% phenylephrine (Tropherin®, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Inc., Seoul, Korea) was applied. A 5.5-mm sclero-corneal tunnel was made at the 12 o’clock position, and two side incisions were made at the 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock positions. After freeing the dislocated IOL from the vitreous by partial vitrectomy, it was gently removed through the sclero-corneal tunnel. After filling the anterior chamber with a viscoelastic material (Viscoat, Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA), R-IOL (iris claw Artisan Aphakia Model 205) was inserted through a previously formed sclero-corneal tunnel. The lens haptics were enclavated to the posterior iris at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions. Miotic agent was not used before implanting the R-IOL. Inadvertent touch of the iris usually occurs during the removal of the dislocated IOL complex. This unavoidable surgical touch of the iris induced miosis, resulting in a relatively optical pupil size for implantation of the iris-claw IOL [16]. Peripheral iridectomy was not performed. The viscoelastic material was removed, and the sclero-corneal tunnel was subsequently sutured with 10 − 0 nylon. All surgeries were performed by a single retinal specialist (M. K.) with 15 years of experience performing retina surgery. The surgical video is given in additional file 1. Moxifloxacin hydrochloride 0.5% ophthalmic solution (Vigamox, Novartis, Seoul, Korea), prednisolone acetate 1% ophthalmic solution (Pre Forte 1%, Allergan, Seoul, Korea), and bromfenac sodium hydrate 0.1% ophthalmic solution (Bronuck, Taejoon, Seoul, Korea) were administered every hour on the day of surgery, every two hours for the first week following the surgery, and three times a day for the following eight weeks.

Statistical analysis

A Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare ECD, CV, HEX and visual outcomes before and after surgery. Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The 95% confidence interval was calculated, as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Nine patients (9 eyes) were included in our analysis. Demographic and baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The age (mean ± SD) was 64.89 ± 7.15 years (range 57–76 years), and the mean follow-up duration was 37.93 ± 23.72 months (range 18.07–89.07 months). All the included patients were male. No patients had pseudoexfoliation. The initial mean UDVA was 1.09 ± 0.75, and the initial mean BCVA was logMAR 0.09 ± 0.11; pre-operative ECD was 708.1 ± 150.9 cells/mm2.

Table 1 Demographic and baseline characteristics of patients who underwent IOL implantation due to IOL dislocation and whose pre-operative ECD was less than 1000 cells/mm2 (n = 9 patients)
Full size table

Table 2 shows previous operation history, the cause for IOL dislocation, and corneal endothelial function data at the initial and last follow-up for all nine patients. There was only one patient whose pre-operative ECD was < 500 mm/cm2 (Patient 9, ECD = 468 mm/cm2). However, his ECD at the last follow-up was 539 mm/cm2. Only Patient 7 had an ECD < 500 mm/cm2 at the last follow-up; his initial ECD was 518 mm/cm2 and the last ECD was 421 mm/cm2. No patients developed bullous keratopathy during follow-up. Comparing the ECD values between the initial assessment and all post-operative time points revealed a slight decrease; however, this decline was not statistically significant (P = 0.944), as indicated in Table 3.

Table 2 Corneal endothelial function data of 9 patients at the initial and last follow-up (n = 9)
Full size table
Table 3 Surgical outcomes after retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens: corneal endothelium function (n = 9 patients)
Full size table

The evaluation of endothelial function after the surgery included a comparison of CT, CV and HEX. The pre-operative and post-operative CT values were 578.9μm and 583.1μm, respectively. The CV values were 37.8% preoperatively and 36.7% postoperatively, whereas the HEX values were 56.3% preoperatively and 49.4%, as detailed in Table 2. Importantly, these measurements demonstrated no noteworthy decrease (P = 0.778 for CT, P = 0.445 for CV and P = 0.443 for HEX), as presented in Table 3.

Immediately after the operation, all patients showed a significant improvement in the UDVA. A post-hoc test showed that there was a statistically significant difference in visual acuity between the initial measurement and all subsequent measurements taken after operation (repeated Measures ANOVA, p = 0.004; all relevant pairwise comparisons p < 0.004, 0.005, 0.006, and 0.006). Vision was maintained over the follow-up period in all patients (Table 4). The comparison of BCVA between the initial and final assessments did not reveal any significant differences (P = 0.896) (Table 4). This result suggests that these patients have achieved their maximum visual potential.

Table 4 Surgical outcomes after retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens: visual acuity (n = 9 patients)
Full size table

No intra-operative complications occurred in any of the patients. Seven of the nine patients (77.8%) did not require additional treatment. However, disenclavation of single-haptics occurred in two patients (22.2%; Patients 4 and 9). This complication occurred at 3 years and 8 months post-operatively in patient 4, and at 3 years and 3 months post-operatively in patient 9. Both the disenclaved lenses were re-enclavated without explantation of the originally implanted retropupillary lens. Single-haptic disenclavation recurred a year after the first re-enclavation in Patient 4. The disenclavated haptic was simply re-enclavated, and at the last follow-up 3 years after the second operation, there was no recurrence (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Three representative pre- and post-operative slit photos with ECD specular images. Patient 3 had slight IOL dislocation inferiorly (A), and the pre-operative ECD was 686 mm/cm2(B). At last follow-up, the IOL was well-situated (C), and the ECD was 663 mm/cm2(D). Patient 6 had inferior IOL haptic dislocated anteriorly (E), and the pre-operative ECD was 864 mm/cm2(F). At last follow-up, the IOL was well-situated (G), and the ECD was 611 mm/cm2(H). Patient 8 had incomplete IOL dislocation inferiorly (I), and the pre-operative ECD was 725 mm/cm2(J). At last follow-up, the IOL was well-situated (K), and the ECD was 672 mm/cm2(L). No bullous keratopathy developed in any patient

Full size image

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated the safety and visual outcomes of R-IOL implantation in patients with IOL dislocation whose pre-operative ECD was < 1000 cells/mm2. There was only one patient in whom the ECD at the last follow-up was < 500 cells/mm2; however, none of the patients experienced endothelial decompensation-related complications during the follow-up period. There was significant improvement in the mean UDVA at the last follow-up (average 0.13 logMAR, 20/27 Snellen) compared to the pre-operative mean UDVA (average 1.09 logMAR, 20/250 Snellen).

ECD loss is a common complication of IOL dislocation surgery, and a recent study by Dalby et al. reported ECD loss varying from 11 to 21% [17]. There are a few studies regarding ECD loss after R-IOL implantation. Gonnermann et al. reported an ECD decrease of 5.5% after a mean follow-up of 34 months [12], whereas Durmus et al. reported an ECD loss of 7.2% at a mean follow-up of 9 months [18]. Forlini et al. showed that the post-operative ECD was not statistically significant compared to the pre-operative ECD [13]. Choi et al. reported an ECD decrease of 16% at 1-month post-operatively; however, it remained stable thereafter during the mean follow-up of 38.2 months [14]. The possible cause of ECD loss after R-IOL implantation is suggested to be surgical stress caused by IOL removal through the scleral tunnel [14, 19]. In this study, the ECD loss (7.75% with a mean follow-up of 37.93 months) was similar to that reported in previous studies [12, 14, 17, 18]. The reproducibility of ECD measurements is expected to be in the range of 0–23% [20], and in our study, all but two patients (Patients 2 and 6) had an ECD percentage difference in this range. However, there was no significant difference in the ECD after R-IOL implantation compared with that before R-IOL implantation in this study.

We postulate that the preservation of ECD in these already compromised corneas with extremely low ECD was because additional intra-operative and post-operative measures were taken to minimize the potential damage to the cornea. Intra-operatively, dispersive viscoelastics were used sufficiently and repeatedly during the entire surgical procedure to protect the corneal endothelium. In addition, when the IOL was rescued from the posterior vitreous cavity into the anterior chamber, manipulation of the IOL for removal within the anterior chamber was minimized and extra measures were taken to ensure that the IOL did not come in close contact with the corneal endothelium. Furthermore, IOL removal through the scleral tunnel may cause surgical stress to the corneal endothelium.

In recent times, the sutureless intrascleral fixation technique has gained substantial prominence as a method for surgically fixing IOLs in cases where there is insufficient support from the lens capsule. Notably, Agarwal et al. introduced the glued IOL technique, while Yamane et al. introduced the flanged intrascleral fixation technique, both employing foldable 3-piece IOLs inserted through a-2.8 mm clear corneal incision. These techniques result in less astigmatism, as they necessitate smaller corneal incisions compared to R-IOL, which requires a larger 5.5-mm corneoscleral incision. Nevertheless, the glued IOL technique and Yamane technique require the manipulation of haptics, as well as precise and symmetrical parallel limbus scleral tunnels for correct IOL positioning [21, 22]. The study by Guerin et al. compared the Yamane technique and R-IOL implantation in terms of safety and efficacy. Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in BCVA, and the complication rates were comparable overall. However, the postoperative hyperopic shift was more pronounced in the Yamane group. Although the R-IOL implantation technique depends on the iris condition, it has an advantage over the Yamane technique due to the simplicity of the surgical procedure and less refractive prediction error [23].

A recent advancement comes in the form of the single-piece sutureless scleral fixation IOL (Carlevale, Soleko), designed to be suspended into the posterior chamber through two transscleral plugs. This foldable, one-piece acrylic lens eliminates the need for haptic manipulation. However, ensuring a straight and symmetrical scleral incision is imperative for proper positioning of the plugs [22].

The retropupillary iris claw IOL lens bypasses the need for scleral pockets by directly enclaving onto the iris. However, this technique necessitates an intact iris structure and a larger corneoscleral incision, which could induce astigmatism.

Since a 5.5-mm corneoscleral incision is required for retropupillary iris claw lens im-plantation, we could take full advantage of this sufficiently large incision for one-step smooth removal of the dislocated IOL through the incision, without having to perform any further manipulation within the anterior chamber; such manipulations, including cutting of the IOL, may cause further damage to the corneal endothelium. It was assumed that creating a 5.5-mm corneoscleral incision may likely cause significant damage to the al-ready compromised cornea; however, our study results showed otherwise.

Compared with other suture fixation techniques, our one-step enclavation technique [24] minimizes the surgical time and allows enclavation of the IOL in a matter of seconds. In addition, the post-operative application of any potentially toxic medications to the corneal endothelium was avoided.

In addition to ECD loss, common complications after R-IOL implantation include changes in the IOP, cystoid macular edema, disenclavation of the lens, iris atrophy, and decentration of the lens [25]. Among these complications, only disenclavation of a single haptic occurred in two patients (22.2%). Previous studies reported haptic disenclavation rates of up to 37% [13, 25,26,27]. Kim et al. reported that if the operation is performed by an inexperienced surgeon, they are more likely to perform insufficient or incorrect haptic enclavation and eventually increase the risk of disenclavation of the haptics [28]. However, in this study, all surgeries were performed by a highly experienced surgeon. Because the number of patients in this study was small, the incidence rate of this complication may seem to be high.

The Artisan aphakic IOL is available in powers ranging from + 2.0 D to + 30.0 D. In this study, we utilized a biconvex model with powers ranging from + 14.5 D to + 20.0 D. Although some researchers posit that peripheral iridectomy is necessary for retropupillary implantation of biconvex IOLs [27], previous studies employing the same Artisan aphakia model for retropupillary implantation did not perform peripheral iridectomy and reported no instances of pupillary block [13, 26, 29]. Folini et al. mentioned that the positioning of the lens posterior to the iris situates the IOL below the iris plane, potentially providing sufficient clearance between the lens optic and the posterior iris surface [13]. One patient experienced elevated IOP at final visit (25mmHg); however, the patient was using glaucoma eyedrops due to a known history of glaucoma to manage increased IOP. Other patients had a normal IOP range after the surgery and during follow-up period.

This study had a few limitations. First, because this study was conducted retrospectively, there were some missing data and the definitive superiority of the treatment could not be evaluated. Second, the sample size was relatively small. A prospective multicentre study with a larger sample size is required to confirm our findings.

In conclusion, R-IOL implantation did not result in a statistically significant decline in corneal endothelial function in patients with preoperatively low ECD, and it significantly improved the mean UDVA postoperatively. Our findings suggest that R-IOL implantation in patients with extremely low ECD (< 1000 cells/mm2) is a safe and effective option for treating IOL dislocation. However, long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm our findings.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Clark A, Morlet N, Ng JQ, Preen DB, Semmens JB. Whole population trends in complications of cataract surgery over 22 years in Western Australia. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(6):1055–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gimbel HV, Condon GP, Kohnen T, Olson RJ, Halkiadakis I. Late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation: incidence, prevention, and management. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(11):2193–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dabrowska-Kloda K, Kloda T, Boudiaf S, Jakobsson G, Stenevi U. Incidence and risk factors of late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation: evaluation of 140 eyes between 1992 and 2012. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(7):1376–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Østern AE, Sandvik GF, Drolsum L. Late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(2):184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pueringer SL, Hodge DO, Erie JC. Risk of late intraocular lens dislocation after cataract surgery, 1980–2009: a population-based study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(4):618–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Shingleton BJ, Yang Y, O’Donoghue MW. Management and outcomes of intraocular lens dislocation in patients with pseudoexfoliation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(7):984–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shuaib AM, El Sayed Y, Kamal A, El Sanabary Z, Elhilali H. Transscleral sutureless intraocular lens versus retropupillary iris-claw lens fixation for paediatric aphakia without capsular support: a randomized study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(6):e850–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yilmaz A, Başer Z, Yurdakul NS, Maden A. Posterior chamber lens implantation techniques in posterior capsular rupture. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jan-Feb;14(1):7–13.

  9. Sawada T, Kimura W, Kimura T, Suga H, Ohte A, Yamanishi S, et al. Long-term follow-up of primary anterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(11):1515–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dajee KP, Abbey AM, Williams GA. Management of dislocated intraocular lenses in eyes with insufficient capsular support. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27(3):191–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wolter-Roessler M, Küchle M. Ergebnisse Der Aphakiekorrektur durch retroiridal fixierte kunstlinse [Correction of aphakia with retroiridally fixated IOL]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008;225(12):1041–4. German.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonnermann J, Amiri S, Klamann M, Maier AK, Joussen AM, Rieck PW, et al. Endothelzellverlust Nach retropupillar fixierter Irisklauen-Linse [Endothelial cell loss after retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2014;231(8):784–7. German.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Forlini M, Soliman W, Bratu A, Rossini P, Cavallini GM, Forlini C. Long-term follow-up of retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation: a retrospective analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi EY, Lee CH, Kang HG, Han JY, Byeon SH, Kim SS, et al. Long-term surgical outcomes of primary retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of intraocular lens dislocation. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):726.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodríguez-Fernández S, Piñeiro-Ramil M, Castro-Viñuelas R, Sanjurjo-Rodríguez C, Álvarez-Portela M, Fuentes-Boquete IM, et al. Current development of alternative treatments for endothelial decompensation: cell-based therapy. Exp Eye Res. 2021;207:108560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cervantes-Coste G, Sánchez-Castro YG, Orozco-Carroll M, Mendoza-Schuster E, Velasco-Barona C. Inhibition of surgically induced miosis and prevention of postoperative macular edema with nepafenac. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:219–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalby M, Kristianslund O, Østern AE, Falk RS, Drolsum L. Longitudinal corneal endothelial cell loss after corrective surgery for late in-the-bag IOL dislocation: a randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(7):1030–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Durmus E, Esen F, Yenerel M, Sanisoglu H, Oguz H. Clinical outcome and endothelial loss following prepupillary and retropupillary implantation of iris claw intraocular lenses. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(12):3961–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yoo TK, Lee SM, Lee H, Choi EY, Kim M. Retropupillary Iris fixation of an Artisan Myopia Lens for Intraocular Lens Dislocation and Aphakia in eyes with extremely high myopia: a Case Series and a literature review. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(3):1251–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Benetz BA, Gal RL, Ruedy KJ, Rice C, Beck RW, Kalajian AD, et al. Specular microscopy ancillary study methods for donor endothelial cell density determination of Cornea Donor Study images. Curr Eye Res. 2006;31(4):319–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Raimondi R, Sorrentino T, Kilian R, Verma Y, De Rosa FP, Cancian G, et al. Trans-Scleral Plugs Fixated FIL SSF IOL: a review of the literature and comparison with other secondary IOL implants. J Clin Med. 2023;12(5):1994.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Barca F, Caporossi T, de Angelis L, Giansanti F, Savastano A, Di Leo L, et al. Trans-scleral plugs fixated IOL: a new paradigm for sutureless scleral fixation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(5):716–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guerin PL, Guerin GM, Pastore MR, Gouigoux S, Tognetto D. Long-term functional outcome between Yamane technique and retropupillary iris-claw technique in a large study cohort. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2024;50(6):605–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kang HG, Choi EY, Lee SC, Kim M. A modified technique for easier enclavation of Retropupillary Iris Claw Intraocular Lens. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(8):564–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Drolsum L, Kristianslund O. Implantation of retropupillary iris-claw lenses: a review on surgical management and outcomes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021;99(8):826–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Toro MD, Longo A, Avitabile T, Nowomiejska K, Gagliano C, Tripodi S, et al. Five-year follow-up of secondary iris-claw intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of aphakia: anterior chamber versus retropupillary implantation. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4):e0214140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214140.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Thulasidas M. Retropupillary Iris-Claw intraocular lenses: a Literature Review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:2727–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim MS, Park SJ, Joo K, Kang HG, Kim M, Woo SJ. Single-haptic dislocation of Retropupillary Iris-Claw intraocular Lens: outcomes of Reenclavation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51(7):384–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Baykara M, Ozcetin H, Yilmaz S, Timuçin OB. Posterior iris fixation of the iris-claw intraocular lens implantation through a scleral tunnel incision. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144(4):586–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Vision Research, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonjuro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, Republic of Korea

    Seung Min Lee, Tae Young Kim, Junwon Lee & Min Kim

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Vision Research, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Hyun Goo Kang

Authors
  1. Seung Min Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tae Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyun Goo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junwon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Min Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.L., T.Y.K., and M.K.; methodology, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L., and M.K.; software, S.M.L. and T.Y.K.; validation, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; formal analysis, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; investigation, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; resources, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; data curation, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; writing—review and editing, S.M.L. and M.K.; visualization, S.M.L., T.Y.K., H.G.K., J.L. and M.K.; supervision, H.G.K., J.L., and M.K.; project administration, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Kim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Gangnam Severance Hospital (IRB approval number: 3-2022-0225). The informed consent requirement was waived by the Gangnam Severance Hospital Institutional Review Board due to the study’s retrospective design.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S.M., Kim, T.Y., Kang, H.G. et al. Outcomes of retropupillary iris claw lens implantation in patients with intraocular lens dislocation and low (less than 1000 cells/mm2) corneal endothelial cell density. BMC Ophthalmol 24, 375 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03621-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03621-4

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us