Abstract
BackgroundThis study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis.MethodsSeventy five patients with iridodialysis undergoing surgery from February 2008 to October 2017 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two Groups, Group A (32 eyes) and Group B (35 eyes), with Group A using a 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided 10–0 nylon suture, and Group B using a double-armed polypropylene suture. Before operation and 1, 3, and 6 months after the operation, pupil shape, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), the rate of endothelial cell loss, and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between two Groups during the follow-up period.ResultsIridodialysis was repaired with pupil shape restored in all cases. IOP was normalized in all eyes except 2 eyes (6.3%) in Group A and 3 eyes (8.6%) in Group B. Postoperative rate of endothelial cell loss was not significantly different between two Groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of complicated cataract was not significantly different in Group A (2 eyes, 6.3%) compared to Group B (2 eyes, 5.7%) (χ2 = 0.009, P = 0.658).ConclusionsBoth techniques for repairing iridodialysis not only were safe but also effective in improving visual function and cosmetic recovery. However, double-armed polypropylene suture might be less invasive than 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided suture.
Highlights
This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis
It commonly occurs secondary to blunt or penetrating ocular trauma, and intraocular surgical procedures, in which ocular contusion is the most common cause. [1, 2] It was reported that the percentage of iridodialysis in blunt injury was 9.3% [3], while that occurred in 0.2% of patients who underwent cataract surgeries
General information A total of 75 iridodialysis patients (75 eyes) were admitted to our ophthalmology department during the study period. 35 and 40 patients were assigned to Group A and Group B, respectively
Summary
This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis. Various surgical techniques have been used to restore the anatomy of iris, including closed [5,6,7] and open chamber [8] iridoplasty. Since the restored iris root was attached inside of the sclera incision in open chamber iridoplasty, reconstruction of closed chamber iris was proved to be safer and less invasive than open chamber techniques. [9] 26-gauge needle guided 10–0 nylon suture and double-armed polypropylene suture were two common techniques for closed chamber iridoplasty. We here attempted to compare these two surgical techniques to determine their safety and effectiveness in treating iridodialysis.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
