Posters

Endocapsular piggyback implantation of capsule bag expander (open bag device) and IOL

Poster Details

First Author: S.Kuznetsov RUSSIA

Co Author(s):    R. Galeev              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Analysis of clinical results of piggyback implantation of new open bag device (capsule bag expander) with different IOLs.

Setting:

Department of Ophthalmology, Penza Federal State Institute for Postgraduate Medical Studies of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation, Penza, Russia.

Methods:

Hydrophobic acrylic capsule bag expander (CBE) by 'Reper-NN Ltd.' (Russia) 5.5 x 15.5 x 0.2 mm by size made in the form of elastic plate having an optical part without diopters and plate torsion haptic was used in combination with various models of IOLs in 8 eyes of 8 patients with age-related cataract. IOLs Rayner on 4 eyes and Acryfold on 4 eyes, both are hydrophilic were used. The CBE and IOL were implanted (piggyback implantation) during a routine PHACO through an incision of 2.2-2.4 mm, wherein the IOL was disposed perpendicularly to previously implanted expander or in the same meridian with CBE haptic. Both implants were placed in the capsular bag. UBM were used in pre-op and post-op period to determine the native lens parameters, post-op CB parameters and expander with IOL assessment in CB. Follow-up was up 6 months to 1.5 years.

Results:

All implantations were no complicated, implantation of CBE in combination with different IOL models was shown to be available. The immediate effect of the CB shape recovery was obtained in all cases after surgery and remained throughout the follow-up period. Significant difference in pre-op and post-op sizes of lens capsular bag was absent. Posterior capsule opacification and CB folds formation were not observed in any case of follow-up. According to UBM data, lens and CBE position in the capsular bag was stable, the distance between the optical parts of the lens and the CBE was different, from 0.02 to 1.5 mm. Visual acuity with correction was 0.68 ± 0.24 in a month after surgery and consistent with retinal visual acuity.

Conclusions:

The study has shown a possibility, simplicity and safety of piggyback implantation of new open bag device (CBE) with different IOLs. The method meets to modern requirements in micro-invasive cataract surgery and has no specific complications during surgery and in follow-up. The piggyback implantation of CBE with IOL revealed the effectiveness of the device to preserve the CB form and optimal anatomical relationships in the eye after the native lens removal in the early and late follow-up and to prevent a secondary cataract. The method don't preclude to surgeon to use his own preference IOL model. The presence of the distance between the optical parts of IOL and CBE opens the possibility to change the lens position to correct a possible refractive error in the post-op. FINANCIAL INTEREST: NONE