Comparing safety and efficiency of two closed-chamber techniques for iridodialysis repair - a retrospective clinical study

Abstract

Abstract Background This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis. Methods Seventy five patients with iridodialysis undergoing surgery from February 2008 to October 2017 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two Groups, Group A (32 eyes) and Group B (35 eyes), with Group A using a 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided 10–0 nylon suture, and Group B using a double-armed polypropylene suture. Before operation and 1, 3, and 6 months after the operation, pupil shape, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), the rate of endothelial cell loss, and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between two Groups during the follow-up period. Results Iridodialysis was repaired with pupil shape restored in all cases. IOP was normalized in all eyes except 2 eyes (6.3%) in Group A and 3 eyes (8.6%) in Group B. Postoperative rate of endothelial cell loss was not significantly different between two Groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of complicated cataract was not significantly different in Group A (2 eyes, 6.3%) compared to Group B (2 eyes, 5.7%) (χ2 = 0.009, P = 0.658). Conclusions Both techniques for repairing iridodialysis not only were safe but also effective in improving visual function and cosmetic recovery. However, double-armed polypropylene suture might be less invasive than 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided suture.

Keywords

• Iridodialysis
• Iridoplasty
• Closed-chamber technique
• Iridodialysis repair
• Iris tear