Comparison between Limbal and Pars Plana Approaches Using Microincision Vitrectomy for Removal of Congenital Cataracts with Primary Intraocular Lens Implantation.
Purpose. To compare the surgical outcomes of limbal versus pars plana vitrectomy using the 23-gauge microincision system for removal of congenital cataracts with primary intraocular lens implantation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all eyes that underwent cataract removal through limbal or pars plana incision. Main outcome measures included visual outcomes and complications. Results. We included 40 eyes (26 patients) in the limbal group and 41 eyes (30 patients) in the pars plana group. The mean age was 46 months. There was no significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity between the two groups (P = 0.64). Significantly, more eyes had at least one intraoperative complication in the limbal group than in the pars plana group (P = 0.03) that were mainly distributed at 1.5-3 years of age (P = 0.01). The most common intraoperative complications were iris aspiration, iris prolapse, and iris injury. More eyes in the limbal group had postoperative complications and required additional intraocular surgery, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.19). Conclusions. The visual results were encouraging in both approaches. We recommend the pars plana approach for lower incidence of complications. The limbal approach should be reserved for children older than 3 years of age and caution should be exercised to minimize iris disturbance.
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Xin
X
Liu
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Tianyu
T
Zheng
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Xingtao
X
Zhou
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Yi
Y
Lu
Department of Ophthalmology, ParkwayHealth Hong Qiao Medical Center, Shanghai 200033, China.
Peng
P
Zhou
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Fan
F
Fan
Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Myopia of State Health Ministry, Shanghai 200031, China; Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration of Shanghai, Shanghai 200031, China.
Yi
Y
Luo