Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2025
Long-term results after sutureless intrascleral fixation of the Carlevale intraocular lens: Changes in scleral pocket thickness over time.
Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term results after sutureless intrascleral fixation of the Carlevale intraocular lens: Changes in scleral pocket thickness over time.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Trial
- Anatomical and Functional Outcomes of Sutureless Scleral-Fixated Carlevale Intraocular Lens Implantation: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the long-term effects and dynamic changes in scleral thickness above the T-haptic after sutureless scleral-fixated intraocular lens (sSFIOL) implantation using the FIL-SFF Carlevale lens.
settingSingle-centre, single-surgeon, prospective clinical trial, Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
methodsThirty-six eyes of 36 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria for this post hoc analysis. Visual acuity, tilt and decentration of the IOL, as well as complications, were evaluated alongside imaging of the scleral pockets during multiple time points using the anterior optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) system Tomey CASIA 2 in the bleb mode. The OCT scan pattern, oriented parallel to the T-shaped haptic of the IOL, facilitated manual analysis of images to measure scleral pocket thickness on both the temporal and nasal haptics. To compensate for distortions and non-perpendicular image acquisition, distal T-haptic thickness was also measured to calculate the relative scleral pocket thickness. For statistical evaluation, a linear mixed model was used, where we corrected for multiple measurements.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 28 ± 11 months. Measured scleral thickness above the T-haptic exhibited a significant decrease on both temporal and nasal sides, translating to an estimated annual decrease of approximately 0.03 mm (p < 0.001). Postoperatively, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved from 0.77 ± 0.74 logMAR preoperatively to 0.41 ± 0.60 (p < 0.001). IOL tilt increased slightly from 7.23° ± 3.43° to 7.71° ± 3.70° (p = 0.003), while decentration significantly decreased from 0.41 ± 0.21 to 0.39 ± 0.20 mm (p < 0.001) postoperatively.
conclusionsLong-term evaluation of Carlevale sSFIOL implantation demonstrated a significant improvement in postoperative BCVA. However, we observed a thinning of the scleral pocket thickness, raising questions about its clinical significance and the viability of subconjunctival placement of T-haptics in the long term. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term patency of the scleral pocket.
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.