ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Surgical Outcomes of Retropupillary Iris-Claw Intraocular Lens Implantation for Various Indications.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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.
- Surgical Outcome of Iris Claw and Scleral Tuck Intraocular Lens in Primary Cataract Surgery by Phacoemulsification in a Tertiary Care Center: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Penetrating keratoplasty combined with intrascleral fixation of a four-haptic intraocular lens in aphakic eyes with corneal pathology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionThe retropupillary iris-claw intraocular lens (RP-IOL) offers a sutureless solution to complications like aphakia, intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation, and opacification post-cataract surgery. Unlike time-consuming, complication-prone traditional methods, RP-IOL potentially reduces surgical time and complications. This study evaluates RP-IOL's clinical outcomes to assess its efficacy and safety.
methodsThis single-center retrospective case series reviewed medical records of 68 eyes from 68 patients who underwent RP-IOL implantation between January 2017 and May 2023. Preoperative and postoperative data, including visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), and spherical equivalent (SE), were analyzed.
resultsThe mean uncorrected VA improved significantly from 1.25 ± 0.73 (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) preoperatively to 0.42 ± 0.47 at 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.001). The mean IOP decreased significantly from 17.69 ± 5.01 mmHg preoperatively to 16.09 ± 4.23 mmHg 1 month postoperatively (P = 0.041). Postoperative complications occurred in 35.3% of cases, with the most common being IOP elevation (13.2%), cystoid macular edema (11.8%), and disenclavation of IOL (7.4%). Most complications were successfully managed. The study also included a subanalysis of seven patients with IOL opacification, showing improved VA postoperatively, although without statistical significance due to the small sample size.
conclusionsRP-IOL implantation is an effective and safe option for secondary IOL implantation or exchange in cases of aphakia, IOL dislocation, and IOL opacification. The procedure offers significant improvements in visual acuity and a reduction in intraocular pressure, with manageable postoperative complications. While the study supports the use of RP-IOL as a viable option, further research with larger sample sizes and prospective designs is recommended to establish its long-term efficacy and safety compared to traditional methods.
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.