Comparative Analysis Of Astigmatism, Visual Outcomes, And Complications Between Canabrava And Yamane Sfiol Techniques.
Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: FP24.01 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/7yfv-6m56
Authors: Dr Sohee Jeon* 1 , A/Prof. Joonhyung Kim 2 , A/Prof. Dong Geun Kim 3
1Keye Eye Center,Seoul,Korea, Republic Of;the SCISSOR (SCleral Fixation Surgery investigator),Busan,Korea, Republic Of, 2Department of Ophthalmology,Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine,Bundang,Korea, Republic Of;the SCISSOR (SCleral Fixation Surgery investigator),Busan,Korea, Republic Of, 3Department of Ophthalmology,Inje University Busan Paik Hospital,Busan,Korea, Republic Of;the SCISSOR (SCleral Fixation Surgery investigator),Busan,Korea, Republic Of
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of two scleral-fixated intraocular lens (SFIOL) techniques, specifically evaluating postoperative astigmatism, visual acuity, and complication rates between the Canabrava and Yamane methods.
Setting
A single university hospital.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent SFIOL at Inje University Busan Paik Hospital between February 2020 and March 2025. Patients with a follow-up duration of at least one month were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of cases with penetrating trauma, corneal surgery within three months of the SFIOL procedure, or a lack of postoperative refraction and keratometry data. The primary outcome was IOL-related astigmatism (LA), calculated using a vector analysis formula. Secondary outcomes included total astigmatism and postoperative complications.
Results
Among a total of 294 eyes, 83 in the Canabrava group and 143 in the Yamane group were enrolled. The Canabrava group showed significantly lower LA at all time points (1, 3 months, and last follow-up). At the last follow-up, mean LA was 0.62±0.38 D for Canabrava vs 1.06±0.90 D for Yamane (p<0.001). Final LA ≥1 D was more frequent in the Yamane group (39.7%) than the Canabrava group (16.2%, p<0.001). Complication-free survival showed no significant difference for most complications. However, optic capture occurred only in the Yamane group (7.7%, p=0.008), while flange dislodgement was more common in the Canabrava group (7.2%, p=0.011). Mean operating time was longer for Canabrava (18.1±4.62 min) than Yamane (12.0±3.77 min, p<0.001).
Conclusions
Although the Canabrava technique requires longer surgical time, it provides superior refractive stability by significantly reducing LA compared to the Yamane technique. While the Canabrava method was associated with a lower incidence of optic capture, a higher rate of flange dislodgement was observed. Further large-scale studies with long-term follow-up are warranted to fully evaluate the clinical safety and durability of these two techniques.