Search

Abstract Introduction This study analysed the causative factors and clinical characteristics of acute and chronic ocular sequelae of Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) treated at a large third-referral centre in a developed country (Hungary) over a 15-year period. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients with acute and/or chronic SJS/TEN who were managed between 2006 and 2020 at the Department of Ophthalmology of Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary. For each subject, clinical data, including patient demographics, clinical history, causative agents of SJS/TEN, and conservative and surgical treatment details, were reviewed. Results Ninety-six eyes of 48 patients were included (28 female; 58.3%); the age at disease onset was 32.1 ± 22.4 years. The most common causative factors were medicines (n = 36; 75.0%). Among these drugs, 29.2% were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (n = 14), 20.8% were antibiotics (n = 10) and 14.6% were antiepileptic drugs (n = 7). In patients with chronic SJS/TEN, the most commonly found ocular sequelae were conjunctival hyperaemia in 45 (56.3%) eyes, symblepharon in 38 (47.5%) eyes, trichiasis/distichiasis in 37 (46.3%) eyes, corneal neovascularization in 31 (38.8%) eyes and corneal scarring in 29 (36.3%) eyes. In patients with chronic SJS/TEN, the most frequently used topical conservative treatment included antibiotics in 53 (66.3%) eyes, preservative-free artificial tears in 50 (62.5%) eyes and topical corticosteroids in 42 (52.5%) eyes of 40 patients. The most frequently performed ocular surgeries for managing chronic ocular sequelae in patients with SJS/TEN were epilation for trichiasis (n = 27; 33.8%), cataract surgery (n = 14; 17.5%), entropion surgery (n = 12; 15.0%), penetrating keratoplasty (PK) (n = 11; 13.8%) and amniotic membrane transplantation (n = 4; 5.0%). Conclusion Our results suggest that NSAIDs, antibiotics and antiepileptic drugs are the most common causative factors for SJS/TEN in Hungary. Like in other countries, in Hungary, the ocular management of patients with acute and chronic SJS/TEN is heterogeneous, and most cases do not follow modern therapeutic guidelines.

Purpose. Our study aimed to evaluate the indications and outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation surgeries in a tertiary eyecare center in Hungary. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study included all IOL explantation surgeries performed between 2006 and 2020 at the Department of Ophthalmology of Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. There were no exclusion criteria for this study. For each patient, the demographics, clinical history, preoperative status, indications for IOL explantation, and operative and postoperative details were reviewed. Primary outcomes included explantation indications and the type of secondary implanted IOL. Results. A total of 161 eyes from 153 patients were included (96 males; 62.7%); age at the time of the IOL explantation was 65.0 ± 17.4 years. The mean time between primary cataract surgery and IOL explantation was 8.5 ± 7.7 years. In total, 139 (86.3%) PCIOLs and 22 (13.7%) ACIOLs were explanted. The main indications for IOL explantation were dislocation (n = 133; 95.7%) and refractive cause (n = 2; 1.4%) in the PCIOL group. Among ACIOL explantations, the main reasons were pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (n = 14; 63.6%), dislocation (n = 4; 18.2%), and refractive cause (n = 2; 9.1%). In the PCIOL group, 115 (82.7%) primary IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag, 16 (11.5%) were sulcus fixated, and 8 (5.8%) were scleral fixated. The most frequent ocular comorbidities were previous vitrectomy (n = 50, 31.1%), previous ocular trauma (n = 45, 28.0%), glaucoma (n = 16, 9.9%), pseudoexfoliation syndrome (n = 15, 9.3%), and high axial myopia (n = 14, 8.7%). The most commonly used secondary IOL implant was the prepupillary iris-claw IOL (n = 115, 73.7%), followed by the retropupillary iris-claw IOL (n = 32, 20.5%). Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was significantly better following IOL exchange in the entire sample (1.57 ± 0.61 (range: 2.40–0.05) vs. 0.77 ± 0.56 (range: 2.40–0.00); p