Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39527243›Full record

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

Refractive outcomes for secondary sutureless posterior chamber lens implantation: sutureless scleral fixating lens Carlevale® versus retropupillary iris-claw lens Artisan®.

Justine Bontemps, Olivier Loria, Lucas Sejournet, Benoit Allignet, Sandra Elbany, Frédéric Matonti, Carole Burillon, Philippe Denis, Laurent Kodjikian, Thibaud Mathis

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors.

Justine BontempsService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France.
Olivier LoriaService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France.
Lucas SejournetService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France.
Benoit AllignetService de Radiothérapie, Centre Léon Bérard, 28 Rue Laennec, 69673, Lyon, France.
Sandra ElbanyUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69100, Villeurbane, France.
Frédéric MatontiCentre Monticelli Paradis Center, 13000, Marseille, France.
Carole BurillonUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69100, Villeurbane, France.
Philippe DenisService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France.
Laurent KodjikianService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France.
Thibaud MathisService d'Ophtalmologie, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69004, Lyon, France. thibaud.mathis@chu-lyon.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1418-1872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare refractive outcomes of the foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (Carlevale® FIL-SSF) with the iris-claw lens (Artisan®).

methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent a FIL-SSF implantation or an iris-claw implantation between January 2020 and November 2022 in the ophthalmology departments of Hospices Civils de Lyon (France).

resultsA total of 271 eyes from 265 patients were included: 96 eyes in the FIL-SSF group and 175 eyes in the iris-claw group. At 6 months, the mean (SD) surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly lower in the FIL-SSF group with 0.3 (1.8) diopters against 0.8 (2.1) diopters in the iris-claw group (p = 0.01). The mean (SD) refractive error was also lower for the FIL-SSF group with 0.1 (1.2) diopters versus 0.5 (1.6) diopters in the iris-claw group (p < 0.001). The mean best corrected visual acuity at 6 months was not significantly different between FIL-SSF and iris-claw lens with 0.47 (0.58) logMAR and 0.39 (0.55) logMAR, respectively (p = 0.12). However, the mean (SD) operative time was longer for FIL-SSF implantation in comparison to iris-claw implantation (59.8 (21.1) minutes versus 41.9 (24.4) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001)). The rate of postoperative complications was similar between the two techniques.

conclusionThis study shows that FIL-SSF achieves better refractive results than iris-claw lens, with a similar rate of postoperative complications. As a relatively new implantation technique, there is a learning curve required to reduce operating time. KEY MESSAGES: What is known? Multiple surgical options for correcting aphakia in the absence of capsular support can be used. Currently, foldable intraocular lens sutureless scleral fixated sutureless (FIL-SSF, Carlevale®) and iris-claw (Artisan®) implants are the two preferred options, but there is no consensus on the best technique to adopt. What is new? We showed that FIL-SSF has a significantly lower surgically induced astigmatism compared to the iris-claw implant. Similar rate of postoperative complications was found between these two techniques. Future studies with a longer follow-up period are needed to ascertain its tolerance.

Indexed as

IrisLenses, IntraocularLens Implantation, IntraocularRefraction, OcularScleraSutureless Surgical ProceduresSuture TechniquesVisual AcuityAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignAphakiaArtisan®Carlevale®Iris-claw implantScleral-fixated sutureless intraocular lensSecondary implantationSurgically induced astigmatism

Identifiers

PMID39527243
PMCPMC11953155

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.