This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.  Read our Cookies Policy.
Close
Eye News
  • Features
    • Close
    • Features
    • Allied Professions
    • Humanitarian
    • Interviews
    • AI & Oculomics
    • Ophthalmology
    • Optometry
    • Podcast videos
    • Supplements
  • Education
    • Close
    • Education
    • Learning Curve
    • Quiz
    • Top Tips
    • Trainees
    • Medico-Legal
    • The Truth Behind The Headlines
    • Case Reports
    • Pete's Bogus Journey
  • Reviews
    • Close
    • Reviews
    • Book Reviews
    • Journal Reviews
    • What's trending?
    • Tech Reviews
    • My Top Five
    • The Culture Section
  • Events
  • News
  • Product Guide
  • Industry News
  • Contact us
    • Close
    • Contact us
    • Write for Eye News
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Journal Reviews
  • Clinical outcomes of a supplementary sulcus IOL

Clinical outcomes of a supplementary sulcus IOL
Reviewed by Ed Rule

1 October 2021 | Ed Rule | EYE - Cataract, EYE - Refractive | Dysphotopsia, Pigment deposits, Presbyopia correction, Rayner sulcoflex, Supplementary intraocular lens, implantation
Share This

In this retrospective study, the authors examined 31 eyes of 20 patients who had received a supplementary trifocal sulcus IOL in addition to a ‘bag-in-the-lens’ IOL. Implantation of a ‘bag-in-the-lens’ IOL requires the creation of anterior and posterior capsulotomies, followed by ‘sandwiching’ the two capsular leaflets into a groove around the edge of the IOL. This aims to prevent posterior capsular opacification while providing a stable placement of the IOL. The use of a supplementary sulcus IOL allows for correction of residual refractive errors and presbyopia while being relatively safer to implant compared to piggyback IOLs in the bag. The authors examined visual outcomes retrospectively and also administered a questionnaire to patients who had received the supplementary IOL. Although visual acuity outcomes were unchanged after supplementary IOL implantation, 80% of patients who responded to the questionnaire reported dysphotopsia. Only 53% of patients reported that they were satisfied with their vision. Supplementary IOLs from 13 eyes had to be explanted due to patient dissatisfaction or pigment deposits on the lens. These results are at odds with previously published research regarding the tolerability of supplementary sulcus IOLs, and may not be generalisable given the small sample size and unusual ‘bag-in-the-lens’ design of the primary IOL.

Clinical and surgical outcome of a supplementary multifocal intraocular lens implanted with a Bag-In-the-Lens intraocular lens: 5-year follow-pp.
Verdonck T, Werner L, Ní Dhubhghaill S, Tassignon M-J.
OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
2021;64(3):503-11.
Share This
CONTRIBUTOR
Ed Rule

Wrexham Hospital, UK.

View Full Profile
Specialty
  • EYE - Cataract
  • EYE - Cornea
  • EYE - General
  • EYE - Glaucoma
  • EYE - Neuro-ophthalmology
  • EYE - Oculoplastic
  • EYE - Oncology
  • EYE - Orbit
  • EYE - Paediatrics
  • EYE - Pathology
  • EYE - Refractive
  • EYE - Strabismus
  • EYE - Vitreo-Retinal
Archive
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Top Of Page

9 Gayfield Square, 
Edinburgh EH1 3NT, UK.

Call: +44 (0)131 557 4184
www.pinpoint-scotland.com

WEBSITE DETAILS
  • Cookie Policy
  • Data Protection Notice
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
ABOUT US
  • Who we are
  • Register
  • Contact us
  • Contributors
  • Company Awards
DIGITAL ISSUES/GUIDELINES
  • Digital issues - Library
  • Supplements - Library
  • Guidelines
Accreditations
IPSO_FLAG_TEAL 2025.png cpdcertified.png

Pinpoint Scotland Ltd (Registered in Scotland No. SC068684) | © 2025 - Website by Gecko Agency