Secondary intraocular lens implantation after pediatric aphakia

Purpose To describe our technique for secondary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in aphakic children and report patient outcomes. Patients and Methods In our technique for in-the-bag IOL implantion, we used a microvitreoretinal (MVR) blade to separate the capsular leaflets for aspiration of reproliferated lens material within Soemmering’s ring. When sufficient capsular opening was not possible or capsular support deemed inadequate, an IOL was implanted in the sulcus. Records of patients with secondary IOL implantation between 1999 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed with regard to intra- and postoperative complications and visual and refractive outcomes. Results A total of 50 consecutive eyes of 32 patients were evaluated. Mean age at secondary IOL implantation was 9.1 years. Of these, 26 eyes had in-the-bag IOLs and 24 had sulcus IOLs. Forty-four eyes (88%) had an AcrySof IOL (Alcon Inc, Ft. Worth, TX). The prevalence of any corneal edema (54% vs 19%, P = 0.04) and uveal inflammation >2+ (92% vs 31%, P < 0.05) in immediate postoperative period was greater with sulcus IOL than in-the-bag placement. Late inflammation at 6 months developed in 1 eye, and glaucoma developed in 2 eyes with sulcus IOLs. All eyes maintained or gained lines of best-corrected visual acuity. Mean absolute prediction error was 0.9 ± 0.9 with no significant difference between in-the-bag and sulcus placement. Conclusions Eyes achieving secondary in-the-bag IOL showed less inflammation and corneal edema in the early postoperative period partly as the result of greater surgical and anatomic challenges in some eyes receiving sulcus IOL. Visual and refractive outcomes were satisfactory in eyes with secondary IOL implantation. Mean prediction error was similar for in-the-bag and sulcus IOLs. To describe our technique for secondary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in aphakic children and report patient outcomes. In our technique for in-the-bag IOL implantion, we used a microvitreoretinal (MVR) blade to separate the capsular leaflets for aspiration of reproliferated lens material within Soemmering’s ring. When sufficient capsular opening was not possible or capsular support deemed inadequate, an IOL was implanted in the sulcus. Records of patients with secondary IOL implantation between 1999 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed with regard to intra- and postoperative complications and visual and refractive outcomes. A total of 50 consecutive eyes of 32 patients were evaluated. Mean age at secondary IOL implantation was 9.1 years. Of these, 26 eyes had in-the-bag IOLs and 24 had sulcus IOLs. Forty-four eyes (88%) had an AcrySof IOL (Alcon Inc, Ft. Worth, TX). The prevalence of any corneal edema (54% vs 19%, P = 0.04) and uveal inflammation >2+ (92% vs 31%, P < 0.05) in immediate postoperative period was greater with sulcus IOL than in-the-bag placement. Late inflammation at 6 months developed in 1 eye, and glaucoma developed in 2 eyes with sulcus IOLs. All eyes maintained or gained lines of best-corrected visual acuity. Mean absolute prediction error was 0.9 ± 0.9 with no significant difference between in-the-bag and sulcus placement. Eyes achieving secondary in-the-bag IOL showed less inflammation and corneal edema in the early postoperative period partly as the result of greater surgical and anatomic challenges in some eyes receiving sulcus IOL. Visual and refractive outcomes were satisfactory in eyes with secondary IOL implantation. Mean prediction error was similar for in-the-bag and sulcus IOLs.