Due to copyright issues, an electronic copy of the thesis must be ordered from the faculty. For the faculty to have time to process the order, the order must be received by the faculty at the latest 2 days before the public defence. Orders received later than 2 days before the defence will not be processed. After the public defence, please address any inquiries regarding the thesis to the candidate.
Trial Lecture – time and place
See Trial Lecture.
Adjudication committee
- First opponent: Professor Maria Kugelberg, Karolinska institutet, Sweden
- Second opponent: Professor Emeritus Olav Henrik Haugen, University of Bergen, Norway
- Third member and chair of the evaluation committee: Professor Emeritus Erik Torgeir Fosse, University of Oslo
Chair of the Defence
Professor Emeritus Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen, University of Oslo
Principal Supervisor
Professor Emeritus Liv Drolsum, University of Oslo
Summary
Congenital cataract requires surgery within the first few weeks of life to reduce deprivation amblyopia with poor vision as result.
There are two surgical approaches for congenital cataract: lens removal only, or with primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. While IOLs are standard in older children, their use in infants under six months of age is debated due to concerns about visual axis opacification (VAO), unpredictable eye growth, and repeated anesthesia effects.
Primary implantation of IOL in the capsular bag has been the standard treatment of care at Oslo University Hospital since 2007, and from 2020 the bag-in-the-lens (BIL) technique was introduced in this patient group as well.
This thesis aimed to evaluate and compare the outcomes of these two lens types in infants operated before 12 weeks of age, as few previous studies have focused solely on these young infants.
The findings of this thesis were based on two retrospective studies.
The overall intraoperative complications and visual outcomes with both lenses were comparable and satisfactory.
With the IOL in the capsular bag, about 17% of the eyes developed secondary glaucoma, matching findings from previous research. The BIL method seemed to have a lower risk of secondary glaucoma, but longer follow-up is needed to fully understand its long-term effects.
Additionally, the risk of needing further surgeries due to VAO was notably lower with the BIL lens compared to the IOL in the capsular bag, highlighting the BIL lens potential benefits in these young patients.
Additional information
Contact the research support staff.