Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39259300›Full record

ReviewGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025

Polypseudophakia: from "Piggyback" to supplementary sulcus-fixated IOLs.

Ramin Khoramnia, Guenal Kahraman, Michael Amon, Grzegorz Łabuz, Isabella D Baur, Gerd U Auffarth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Presbyopia Correction in Lens Replacement Surgery: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ramin KhoramniaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Ramin.Khoramnia@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-7773
Guenal KahramanAcademic Teaching Hospital of St John, Johannes-Von-Gott-Platz 1, 1020, Vienna, Austria.
Michael AmonAcademic Teaching Hospital of St John, Johannes-Von-Gott-Platz 1, 1020, Vienna, Austria.
Grzegorz ŁabuzDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Isabella D BaurDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Gerd U AuffarthDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polypseudophakia, the concept of using a second intraocular lens (IOL) to supplement an IOL that has already been placed in the capsular bag, was first used as a corrective measure where the power requirement was higher than that of available single IOLs. Subsequently, the technique was modified to compensate for post-operative residual refractive errors. In these early cases, an IOL designed for the capsular bag would be implanted in the sulcus.  Although these approaches were less than ideal, alternative means of correcting residual refractive errors were not without their limitations: IOL exchange can be traumatic to the eye and is not easily carried out once fibrosis has occurred, while corneal refractive surgical techniques are not suitable for all patients. Piggyback implantation was the term first coined to describe the use of two IOLs, placed together in the capsular bag. The term was later extended to include the procedure where an IOL designed for the capsular bag was placed in the sulcus. Unfortunately, the term piggyback has persisted even though these two approaches have been largely discredited. Intraocular lenses are now available which have been specifically designed for placement in the ciliary sulcus. As these newer IOLs avoid the many unacceptable complications brought about by both types of earlier piggyback implantation, it is time to employ a new terminology, such as supplementary IOL or secondary enhancement to distinguish between the placement of an unsuitable capsular bag IOL in the sulcus and the implantation of an IOL specifically designed for ciliary sulcus implantation. In addition to minimising possible complications, supplementary IOLs designed for the sulcus have expanded the options available to the ophthalmic surgeon. With these new IOLs it is possible to correct presbyopia and residual astigmatism, and to provide temporary correction of refractive errors in growing, or unstable, eyes. This article aims to review the literature available on supplementary IOL implantation in the ciliary sulcus and to summarise the evidence for the efficacy and safety of this intervention. KEY MESSAGES: What is known Polypseudophakia has been used for over 30 years to correct hyperopia or residual refractive error, but early techniques were associated with significant complications. What is new The development of specially designed sulcus-fixated supplementary IOLs significantly reduces the risks associated with these procedures, and has also opened up new opportunities in patient care. The reversibility of the procedure allows patients to experience multifocality, and to provide temporary and adjustable correction in unstable or growing eyes. The terms "secondary enhancement" or "DUET" to describe supplementary IOL implantation are preferential to "piggyback".

Indexed as

Lenses, IntraocularLens Implantation, IntraocularRefraction, OcularVisual AcuityHumansProsthesis DesignDUETPiggybackPseudophakiaSulcus-fixatedSupplementary IOLs

Identifiers

PMID39259300
PMCPMC11953199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.