A contemporary review compares anterior-chamber, iris and scleral fixation and finds no universally superior technique.
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000001220In an ex-vivo model, ePTFE fixation of a four-loop IOL resisted greater displacement force than two flanged techniques.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-61169-3In 72 eyes, decentration was similar, but iris-claw IOLs had less tilt and greater postsaccadic oscillation than flanged scleral-fixated lenses.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001975A 631-eye meta-analysis found similar corrected acuity but different refractive and operative profiles for two secondary-IOL strategies.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-026-07263-8In 59 eyes after secondary Yamane fixation, EVO, Barrett, Hoffer Q and SRK/T did not differ in accuracy; every formula showed directional myopic prediction error.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-026-04934-2In a post-hoc analysis of 226 eyes, Barrett Universal II and Kane produced lower absolute error after secondary sutureless intrascleral fixation of a one-piece IOL.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20260707-01In a retrospective series of 64 eyes, horizontal and vertical flanged intrascleral fixation produced comparable six-month visual and refractive outcomes.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001855