ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Rare micropupil secondary to congenital cataract surgery favoring the development of the affected eye: a case report.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital microcoria has been extensively reported and usually leads to visual dysfunction or blindness. However, micropupil development secondary to cataract surgery has never been reported. Here, we describe a rare case of micropupil development in infancy that occurred secondary to combined cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation for treatment of congenital cataract. When the patient reached adulthood, the affected eye not only gained good vision but also showed better ocular development and refractive status than the fellow eye. CASE PRESENTATION: A 17-year-old boy presented to our outpatient clinic with decreased vision in his left eye related to congenital cataract surgery at 6 months of age. The affected eye had exhibited a pinhole pupil since the third month postoperatively. The condition had been managed with observation and regular monocular occlusion treatment. Upon presentation to our clinic, the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in his fellow eye was 0.0 logMAR(20/20) with a refraction of - 5.75 diopters cylinder/-2.25 diopters sphere, and the BCVA in his affected eye was 0.5 logMAR(20/40) with a refraction of 0.00 diopters. Ophthalmic examination of the affected eye revealed a pinhole pupil (approximately 0.5 mm) with high light reflex sensitivity but no response to pupil-dilating drugs. The patient underwent pupilloplasty of the affected eye under corneal surface anesthesia. Postoperative examination revealed better ocular development in the affected eye than in the fellow eye (axial length: 24.21 vs. 27.02 mm, respectively) as well as better refractive status in the affected eye (BCVA of 0.0 logMAR(20/20) with a refraction of - 2.23 diopters cylinder/-3.00 diopters sphere vs. 0logMAR(20/20) with a refraction of -5.75 diopters cylinder/-2.25 diopters sphere).
conclusionsWe have reported a rare case of micropupil development secondary to congenital cataract surgery, which is an uncommon complication, especially in children. However, unlike congenital microcoria, the secondary pinhole pupil may have reduced imaging haze and halos, possibly favoring the development of the affected eye. This case provides further insight into the treatment of congenital cataract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.