Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jun 25;20(6):e0327210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327210

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of intraocular lens dislocation: an eight-year retrospective study

Su Xu 1, Jingzhi Shao 1, Yuhang Zhang 1, Wei Si 1, Yi Mao 1, Shanshan Du 1, Fengyan Zhang 1,*
Editor: Koichi Nishitsuka2
PMCID: PMC12193011  PMID: 40561146

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the clinical characteristics, risk factors, and short-term visual outcomes following surgical management of intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation, aiming to inform risk stratification and individualized treatment strategies.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 155 patients (166 eyes) diagnosed with IOL dislocation between 2016 and 2024. Data collected included demographic information, ocular and systemic risk factors, surgical interventions, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) before and after surgery, and postoperative complications. Comparative analyses were performed to assess the short-term efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches.

Results

The mean patient age was 55 years, with 86.75% presenting unilateral dislocation. Predominant risk factors identified were high myopia (38.55%) and prior vitrectomy (17.47%). A total of 89.16% of IOL dislocations were classified as late-onset. Of the 154 eyes that underwent surgical intervention, both IOL repositioning and exchange procedures resulted in significant improvements in UDVA (P < 0.05). Postoperative transient intraocular pressure elevations were observed without significant differences between surgical methods, resolving within three days in all cases.

Conclusion

High myopia and prior vitrectomy are significant risk factors for IOL dislocation. Surgical correction, whether through repositioning or exchange, is effective and safe, leading to substantial visual acuity improvements. Proactive identification and management of high-risk individuals are crucial for preventing IOL dislocation and optimizing patient outcomes.

1 Introduction

With the increasing adoption of cataract phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, the incidence of IOL dislocation has become more common, with reported rates ranging from 0.1% to 3%. IOL dislocation can lead to visual impairment and other ocular symptoms, often requiring additional surgery to restore vision, which increases both the economic burden and medical risk for patients. As a result, research on the prevention, early diagnosis, and individualized surgical management of IOL dislocation remains a key focus in ophthalmology.

Studies have shown that high myopia, uveitis, pseudoexfoliation syndrome, retinitis pigmentosa, and a history of intraocular surgery may be risk factors for late-onset IOL dislocation. Intraoperative complications during primary cataract surgery, such as a small continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis, capsular rupture, or zonular damage, are also considered important causes of early dislocation.

Despite these findings, studies addressing regional differences in clinical characteristics and risk factors are limited. There is also a lack of analysis regarding visual recovery and the effectiveness of different surgical approaches. This study retrospectively analyzes clinical data from patients with IOL dislocation in the Central Plains region of China, focusing on clinical features, risk factors, and postoperative visual outcomes. The goal is to provide evidence to support early identification and personalized treatment strategies for high-risk patients.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design and participants

This was a retrospective observational study. A total of 155 patients (166 eyes) diagnosed with IOL dislocation between January 2016 and October 2024 were included.

Inclusion criteria:

  • (1)

    History of IOL implantation;

  • (2)

    Dislocation of the IOL or the IOL–capsular bag complex, confirmed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ophthalmoscopy, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), or optical coherence tomography (OCT), defined as dislocation >0.5 mm from the original position or tilt angle >7° following adequate mydriasis with tropicamide;

  • (3)

    Complete clinical and follow-up data, including detailed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative records, and at least one day of postoperative follow-up;

  • (4)

    Normal cognitive function and the ability to cooperate with ocular examinations.

Exclusion criteria:

  • (1)

    Severe corneal pathology, endophthalmitis, or other uncontrolled ocular conditions preventing necessary examinations;

  • (2)

    Incomplete clinical data, inadequate postoperative follow-up, or failure to comply with follow-up plans resulting in missing key pre- or postoperative data.

All patient records and data were anonymized and de-identified. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (2022-KY-0006–001), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. In the case of minors, written consent was obtained from their guardians.

2.2 Observational parameters

Data collected included demographics, characteristics of the dislocation, systemic and ocular comorbidities, surgical methods, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP), and complications.

Hypertension was defined according to JNC8 guidelines as blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg or current use of antihypertensive medication [1]. Diabetes mellitus was defined by ADA criteria as fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL, random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL, or HbA1c ≥ 6.5% [2].

High myopia was defined as axial length ≥25 mm. Other comorbidities were identified based on medical records. Particular attention was given to details of the initial cataract surgery, including continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) diameter <5.0 mm, capsular rupture, zonular dialysis or laxity, and use of iris hooks or capsular tension rings.

2.3 Ocular examinations

After full pupil dilation with tropicamide, slit-lamp biomicroscopy was used to observe and photograph IOL dislocation and associated signs such as nystagmus, iridodonesis, and corneal edema. AL and IOL power were measured using the IOL Master. Non-contact tonometry was used to measure IOP. UBM was employed to assess the IOL position, zonular integrity, ciliary body, and anterior chamber angle. B-scan ultrasonography, fundus photography, and OCT were used to examine the vitreous, retina, macula, and optic disc.

2.4 Surgical techniques

2.4.1 IOL repositioning.

① In-the-bag repositioning: If the IOL remained adjustable intraoperatively, a 3.0 mm clear corneal incision was made at the 10:30 position under satisfactory anesthesia. Viscoelastic material was injected into the anterior chamber, and a 1.0 mm side port was created at the 2:00 limbus. A dialing hook was used to reposition the dislocated IOL into the capsular bag. After repositioning, the viscoelastic was removed, and the incision was closed by hydration or suturing.

② Intrascleral fixation: For unstable capsular support or high risk of re-dislocation, scleral fixation was performed. The sclera at the 2:00 and 8:00 positions was exposed. An 8−0 polypropylene suture was passed through the sclera 2 mm posterior to the limbus at 8:00, entering the pupillary zone. A 29-gauge needle was introduced at the 2:00 limbus to dock the suture, which was externalized. The suture ends were pulled through the main corneal incision, trimmed, and secured to the IOL haptics. The IOL was then fixated in a Z-suture technique to the scleral layers. The corneal incision was closed with 10−0 nylon sutures, and the conjunctiva was closed with 8−0 absorbable sutures [3] (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Schematic illustration of scleral fixation of the IOL.

Fig 1

A. Docking of the 8−0 polypropylene suture needle with a 29-gauge needle; B. The externalized suture end at the 2:00 position is passed through one closed haptic of the IOL and tied; C. The suture end at the 8:00 position is passed through the diagonally opposite closed haptic of the IOL; D–H. Z-shaped intrascleral fixation technique [3].

2.4.2 IOL exchange.

Indicated for patients with unsuitable IOLs for scleral fixation or with refractive power errors. The original IOL was extracted through a limbal incision at the 10:30 position. Depending on the condition of the capsulorhexis, the new IOL was implanted using either anterior capsular optic capture or scleral fixation techniques, as described above. For reimplanted IOLs, all preset powers were 0°.

2.4.3 IOL explantation.

Performed in cases where ocular conditions precluded re-implantation of an IOL.

In all surgical methods, anterior vitrectomy was conducted if vitreous prolapse into the anterior chamber was observed intraoperatively. Pars plana vitrectomy was combined when the IOL had dislocated into the vitreous cavity.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0. Data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Shapiro–Wilk test. Normally distributed continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using independent samples t-tests. Non-normally distributed data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR), and compared using nonparametric rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages and compared using the χ² test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3 Result

3.1 Sociodemographic characteristics

A total of 155 patients (166 eyes) were included in this study, comprising 114 males (122 eyes) and 41 females (44 eyes), with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range: 37–64; range: 6–87 years). There was no significant difference in the age of onset between males and females (Z = –0.260, P = 0.795). The peak onset age for males was between 49 and 59 years, while for females it was between 59 and 69 years, indicating an earlier peak in males. Among all patients, 65 (41.94%) resided in rural areas and 90 (58.06%) lived in urban areas. No significant difference was observed in the urban-rural distribution.

3.2 Comorbidities

Of the 155 patients, 44 had hypertension and 16 had diabetes. High myopia was present in 64 cases (38.55%), followed by a history of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in 29 cases (17.47%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Systemic and ocular comorbidity in patients with IOL dislocation*.

Disease n(%)
Systemic diseases
Hypertension 44(28.38)
Diabetes 16(10.32)
Atopic diseases (allergy, asthma) 13(8.39)
Post-cholecystectomy 7(4.52)
Post-coronary stent implantation 5(3.23)
Ocular diseases
High myopia 64(38.55)
Prior vitrectomy 29(17.47)
Previous acute angle-closure glaucoma 8(4.82)
Macular epiretinal membrane 6(3.61)
Capsular contraction syndrome 6(3.61)
Posterior capsular opacification 6(3.61)
Amblyopia 6(3.61)
Nystagmus 5(3.01)

* Note: Only conditions with a frequency ≥5 are included.

3.3 Personal history of unhealthy habits

A total of 41 patients (26.45%) reported unhealthy habits, including 33 (21.29%) with a smoking history ranging from 1 to 50 years (mean: 26.73 ± 13.03 years) and an average daily consumption of 16.85 ± 8.81 cigarettes. Eight patients (5.16%) were heavy drinkers with a drinking history of 10–50 years (mean: 28.75 ± 13.56 years) and an average daily alcohol intake of 112.50 ± 44.32 mL.

3.4 Characteristics of IOL dislocation

Among the 155 patients, 166 eyes exhibited IOL dislocation, with unilateral dislocation in 144 patients (144 eyes, 86.75%) and bilateral dislocation in 11 patients (22 eyes, 13.25%). Fifteen eyes (9.04%) experienced recurrent IOL dislocation. The time from the initial surgery to dislocation varied widely—from as early as 1 day postoperatively to up to 20 years. Dislocation occurred within 3 months in 18 cases (10.84%) and beyond 3 months in 148 cases (89.16%), with a mean interval of 7.57 ± 6.48 years (range: 1 day to 25 years).

Prior to dislocation, 24 patients (14.46%) reported a clear triggering factor, including trauma (15 cases, 9.04%), eye rubbing (7 cases, 4.22%), and heavy lifting (2 cases, 1.20%). After dislocation, 4 patients (2.41%) were asymptomatic, and dislocation was detected incidentally during follow-up. Ocular symptoms were reported in 162 eyes (97.59%), most commonly blurred vision alone (129 eyes, 77.71%). Other symptoms included visual instability, eye pain, photophobia, diplopia, and metamorphopsia (33 eyes, 19.88%). On examination, capsular fibrosis was observed in 44 cases (26.51%) and iris incarceration in 22 cases (13.25%). Detailed dislocation characteristics are shown in Fig 2 and Table 2.

Fig 2. Schematic illustrations of IOL dislocation.

Fig 2

(A) Dislocation of the IOL-bag complex due to capsular bag necrosis syndrome. (B) Supernasal dislocation of the IOL, with invisible anterior capsulorhexis margin. (C-D) The IOL is embedded in the pupil, causing pupil deformation. (E) The IOL-bag complex dislocates anteriorly, making contact with the corneal endothelium. (F-G) Capsular contraction causes downward dislocation of the IOL-bag complex, with the white organizing membrane of the anterior capsule visible. (H) Superior dislocation of the IOL, with the inferior zonule elongated and partially ruptured.

Table 2. Characteristics of IOL dislocation.

Parameter Eye(%)
Number of eyes involved
Unilateral Right 70(42.17)
Left 74(44.58)
Bilateral 22(13.25)
Interval between implantation and dislocation
Within 3 months 18(10.84)
After 3 months 148(89.16)
Inducement
With obvious inducement Trauma 15(9.04)
Eye rubbing 7(4.22)
Heavy lifting 2(1.20)
Without obvious inducement 142(85.54)
Season of occurrence
Spring 41(24.70)
Summer 48(28.92)
Autumn 47(28.31)
Winter 30(18.07)
Symptoms
With obvious symptoms Blurred vision 129(77.71)
Others Diplopia 10(6.02)
Metamorphopsia 2(1.20)
Eye pain 8(4.82)
Eye redness 6(3.61)
Visual obstruction 4(2.41)
Foreign body sensation 2(1.20)
Dryness 1(0.60)
Without obvious symptoms 4(2.41)
Complications
Organization of the capsule 44(26.51)
Iris incarceration 22(13.25)
Cystoid macular edema 9(5.42)
Corneal edema 2(1.20)
Inflammatory response 1(0.60)
Causes
Progressive zonule insufficiency 138(83.13)
Suture degradation/breakage 15(9.04)
Capsular contraction syndrome 6(3.61)
Ruptured zonule 3(1.81)
Ruptured capsule 2(1.20)
IOL loop degradation/disruption 2(1.20)

3.5 Surgical treatments and outcomes

Of the 166 eyes, 154 underwent surgical treatment. The remaining 12 eyes did not receive surgery due to low endothelial cell counts (<500 cells/mm²) or patient concerns about surgical outcomes (Table 3). All surgeries were completed successfully without intraoperative complications.

Table 3. Details of surgical treatments for IOL dislocation.

Parameter eye(%)
Surgical technique
IOL repositioning 100(64.94)
IOL replacement 39(25.32)
IOL explantation 12(7.79)
Anterior capsular fibrotic membrane removal 3(1.95)
IOL fixation method
Single-loop fixation 34(22.08)
Double-loop fixation 115(74.68)
IOL-bag complex fixation 5(3.25)
Vitrectomy performed
Anterior vitrectomy 30(19.48)
Complete vitrectomy 23(14.94)

UDVA significantly improved after both IOL repositioning and IOL exchange procedures (P = 0.001 and P = 0.031, respectively). Comparisons of preoperative and postoperative visual acuity across different surgical methods are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of UDVA between different surgical techniques for IOL dislocation*.

Surgical technique Preoperative UDVA Postoperative UDVA Z P
IOL repositioning (n = 100) 0.70 (0.30, 1.28) 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) −3.187 0.001
IOL replacement (n = 39) 0.40 (0.80, 1.30) 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) −2.159 0.031
IOL explantation (n = 12) 1.35 (0.94, 2.00) 1.50 (1.00, 2.00) −0.352 0.725

*Note: UDVA is expressed as log MAR. Finger count: LogMAR 2.0; Hand move: LogMAR 3.0; Light Perception: LogMAR 4.0 [4].

On postoperative day one, slit-lamp examination confirmed that the IOLs were well-centered, without decentration or tilt. The mean IOP was 15.50 mmHg (interquartile range: 11.75–19.00 mmHg; range: 7.00–49.00 mmHg). Elevated IOP was observed in 18 eyes (10 in the repositioning group and 8 in the exchange group), with no statistically significant difference in complication rates between the two groups (χ² = 2.751, P = 0.097). Elevated IOP was managed with anterior chamber paracentesis or intraocular pressure-lowering medications, and IOP returned to normal within 3 days in all cases.

4 Discussion

With the widespread adoption and increasing prevalence of phacoemulsification cataract surgery and IOL implantation, the incidence of partial and complete IOL dislocation has been rising in recent years. The reported incidence of IOL dislocation ranges from approximately 0.1% to 3.0% [57]. Once dislocation occurs, patients often experience significant visual impairment and face the risk of serious complications such as elevated intraocular pressure, retinal detachment, and vitreous hemorrhage [810,11]. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the clinical characteristics and risk factors associated with IOL dislocation is critical for early diagnosis and individualized intervention. Based on eight years of clinical data, this study provides a comprehensive summary of the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and short-term postoperative outcomes of patients with IOL dislocation, offering valuable guidance for clinical practice.

The average age of patients in this study was 55 years, approximately 15 years younger than reported in previous studies [12,13]. The high incidence of high myopia, prior vitrectomy, and younger age reflect the complexity and severity of IOL dislocation cases. Gender analysis revealed a higher proportion of male patients, consistent with previous studies [1416]. This gender difference may be attributable to both behavioral and biological factors. Trauma, a recognized cause of IOL dislocation, is more prevalent in males [17]. Another hypothesis is that males may exhibit more severe zonular weakness, though biological evidence remains limited, and further studies are required to confirm this [18]. This study further analyzed the differences in age at onset between male and female patients. Although no statistically significant difference was found, the peak age of onset occurred slightly earlier in males, suggesting the potential involvement of sex-related differences in the underlying pathological processes.

Risk factors associated with IOL dislocation include trauma (e.g., injury, repeated eye rubbing) [1921], high myopia [9,22], prior vitrectomy [16,23,24], and previous episodes of acute glaucoma [25,26]. Among systemic conditions, hypertension, diabetes, atopic diseases, prior cholecystectomy, and coronary stent implantation were frequently observed. This suggests that these systemic diseases may affect intraocular structural stability through mechanisms such as chronic inflammation and hemodynamic alterations. The associations of diabetes [27] and atopic diseases [28] with IOL dislocation have been previously reported. Smoking, reported by one-fourth of patients in this study, is associated with structural changes in ocular tissues, such as retinal nerve fiber layer thinning [2932] and elastic fiber damage in other organs [33], though its relationship with zonular integrity remains unexplored. This study suggests that smoking may be an underrecognized risk factor, warranting further investigation.

High myopia, noted in 64 cases (38.55%), was the most common ocular risk factor, consistent with prior studies [12,34,35]. Highly myopic eyes exhibit fundus changes (e.g., lacquer cracks, chorioretinal atrophy, posterior scleral staphyloma) and increased axial length, which exert additional stress on the zonules [36,37], increasing the risk of IOL dislocation. Prior vitrectomy was another significant risk factor [22], likely due to intraoperative zonular damage. Additionally, glaucoma was more prevalent in patients with IOL dislocation [38], potentially linked to sustained elevated IOP causing zonular fiber degeneration, ciliary body dysfunction, and reduced capsular bag support [39]. These findings align with our results, highlighting the importance of zonular and capsular stability in maintaining the IOL position.

Based on the timing of onset, IOL dislocation can be classified as early (within three months after surgery) or late (three months or more postoperatively) [40]. In this study, the mean interval between IOL implantation and dislocation surgery was 7.57 years, which aligns with previously reported data (6.9–8.5 years) [40]. Early IOL dislocation is typically associated with capsular rupture or zonular damage caused by surgical trauma, whereas late dislocation is primarily attributed to progressive zonular insufficiency [40]. In this study, 89.16% of cases were classified as late dislocations, with progressive zonular insufficiency identified as the predominant cause. The zonular fibers, which are inserted into the equatorial lens capsule, bear a limited load [41]. Age-related weakening of these fibers exacerbates their fragility, and any disruption can lead to capsular instability, causing IOL displacement or prolapse [23]. This progressive age-related zonular dysfunction accounts for the time-dependent increase in late IOL dislocations [7,42]. Capsular contraction emerged as another significant factor contributing to IOL dislocation in this study. Contraction exerts additional stress on compromised zonular fibers, leading to dislocation. While mild capsular contraction commonly occurs after IOL implantation [43], it generally does not cause dislocation unless exacerbated by underlying conditions such as uveitis [44] or retinitis pigmentosa [27]. These conditions can lead to severe capsular contraction, known as capsular contraction syndrome(CCS), which places excessive strain on the already compromised zonule [19]. CCS is strongly associated with continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis. If the capsulorhexis diameter is too small, capsular fibrosis may occur [8,19], creating a “sphincter effect” around the anterior capsule opening, which intensifies capsular contraction [8]. This phenomenon is particularly severe in advanced IOL dislocation, where progressive zonular damage increases susceptibility to centripetal forces, raising the likelihood of dislocation [8]. The use of stronger sutures can mitigate suture breakage in certain cases. Replacing 10−0 polypropylene sutures with 9−0 polypropylene or 8−0 nonabsorbable sutures have been shown to reduce the incidence of suture degradation [4547].

In this study, with the exception of 12 eyes that underwent conservative management due to specific conditions, all other cases received surgical intervention. Postoperatively, both IOL repositioning and IOL exchange procedures resulted in significant improvement in UDVA. The most common postoperative complication was transient IOP elevation, which was transient and manageable, consistent with previous studies [12,19]. This may be related to residual viscoelastic substances [48,49]. Notably, no cases of serious complications such as retinal detachment were observed, indicating a relatively high level of surgical safety.

Reports on the comparative outcomes of different surgical techniques have been inconsistent. Some previous studies suggest that IOL exchange may be more favorable than repositioning in terms of postoperative IOP control [38]. However, in this study, no significant difference in IOP outcomes was observed between the two surgical techniques. Therefore, the choice of surgical method should be individualized based on patient-specific factors and the surgeon’s expertise.

Based on real-world clinical data, this study systematically analyzed the clinical characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of IOL dislocation, providing valuable data to support the optimization of clinical management pathways and the development of risk assessment models. Nevertheless, certain limitations remain. First, although pseudoexfoliation syndrome is considered a major cause of IOL dislocation in Western populations, it was not included in this analysis due to its low prevalence in the Central China region, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the retrospective observational design of this study carries inherent risks of selection bias and incomplete information. Future research should include large-scale, multicenter, prospective cohort studies that incorporate molecular biology and imaging techniques to further elucidate the mechanisms of IOL dislocation and explore more effective treatment strategies.

In conclusion, the findings of this study contribute to the early identification of high-risk patients, the refinement of follow-up protocols, and the development of individualized treatment plans. The results carry significant clinical and research value. Although IOL dislocation is relatively uncommon, its potential to cause severe visual impairment underscores the importance of long-term follow-up and comprehensive management for high-risk individuals.

5 Conclusion

Progressive zonular insufficiency is the leading cause of IOL dislocation, highlighting the need for early risk assessment and precise surgical management to optimize outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data and key statistical analysis procedures. This file contains the unprocessed raw data used in the study, the within-group rank sum test results, and the between-group Chi-square test procedures.

(PDF)

pone.0327210.s001.pdf (457.5KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Feldman H, Zuber K, Davis JS. Staying up to date with the JNC 8 hypertension guideline. JAAPA. 2014;27(8):44–9. doi: 10.1097/01.JAA.0000451865.17954.9b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Buse JB, Caprio S, Cefalu WT, Ceriello A, Del Prato S, Inzucchi SE, et al. How do we define cure of diabetes?. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(11):2133–5. doi: 10.2337/dc09-9036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jingzhi S, Shanshan D, Fengyan Z. The efficacy of 8-0 polypropylene tortuous suture in intraocular lens suspension (Chinese). Chinese Journal of Ocular Trauma and Occupational Eye Disease. 2021;43(08):635–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(4):388–91. doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-19970701-16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kratz RP, Mazzocco TR, Davidson B, Colvard DM. The Shearing intraocular lens: a report of 1,000 cases. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc. 1981;7(1):55–7. doi: 10.1016/s0146-2776(81)80100-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stark WJ, Worthen DM, Holladay JT, Bath PE, Jacobs ME, Murray GC, et al. The FDA report on intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology. 1983;90(4):311–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pueringer SL, Hodge DO, Erie JC. Risk of late intraocular lens dislocation after cataract surgery, 1980-2009: a population-based study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(4):618–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gimbel HV, Condon GP, Kohnen T, Olson RJ, Halkiadakis I. Late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation: incidence, prevention, and management. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(11):2193–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.06.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dabrowska-Kloda K, Kloda T, Boudiaf S, Jakobsson G, Stenevi U. Incidence and risk factors of late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation: evaluation of 140 eyes between 1992 and 2012. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(7):1376–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.10.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Østern AE, Sandvik GF, Drolsum L. Late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(2):184–91. doi: 10.1111/aos.12024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shingleton BJ, Yang Y, O’Donoghue MW. Management and outcomes of intraocular lens dislocation in patients with pseudoexfoliation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(7):984–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fernández-Buenaga R, Alio JL, Pérez-Ardoy AL, Larrosa-Quesada A, Pinilla-Cortés L, Barraquer R. Late in-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation requiring explantation: risk factors and outcomes. Eye. 2013;27(7):795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu E, Cole S, Werner L, Hengerer F, Mamalis N, Kohnen T. Pathologic evidence of pseudoexfoliation in cases of in-the-bag intraocular lens subluxation or dislocation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(5):929–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.08.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mönestam EI. Incidence of dislocation of intraocular lenses and pseudophakodonesis 10 years after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2315–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kawano S, Takeuchi M, Tanaka S, Yamashita T, Sakamoto T, Kawakami K. Current status of late and recurrent intraocular lens dislocation: analysis of real-world data in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2019;63(1):65–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee GI, Lim DH, Chi SA, Kim SW, Shin DW, Chung TY. Risk Factors for Intraocular Lens Dislocation After Phacoemulsification: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;214:86–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sheu S-J, Ger L-P, Ho W-L. Late increased risk of retinal detachment after cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(1):113–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Matsumoto M, Yamada K, Uematsu M, Fujikawa A, Tsuiki E, Kumagami T, et al. Spontaneous dislocation of in-the-bag intraocular lens primarily in cases with prior vitrectomy. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22(3):363–7. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hayashi K, Hirata A, Hayashi H. Possible predisposing factors for in-the-bag and out-of-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation and outcomes of intraocular lens exchange surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(5):969–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yamazaki S, Nakamura K, Kurosaka D. Intraocular lens subluxation in a patient with facial atopic dermatitis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(2):337–8. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00499-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Böke WR, Krüger HC. Causes and management of posterior chamber lens displacement. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc. 1985;11(2):179–84. doi: 10.1016/s0146-2776(85)80022-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fujikawa A, Mohamed YH, Kinoshita H, Tsuiki E, Kitaoka T. Spontaneous dislocation of the posterior chamber intraocular lens. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38(3):1111–7. doi: 10.1007/s10792-017-0567-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Davis D, Brubaker J, Espandar L, Stringham J, Crandall A, Werner L, et al. Late in-the-bag spontaneous intraocular lens dislocation: evaluation of 86 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(4):664–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Clark A, Morlet N, Ng JQ, Preen DB, Semmens JB. Long-term trends and outcomes of anterior vitrectomy in Western Australia. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93(1):27–32. doi: 10.1111/aos.12453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Su W-W, Chang SHL. Spontaneous, late, in-the-bag intraocular lens subluxation in a patient with a previous acute angle-closure glaucoma attack. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(8):1805–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.12.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jakobsson G, Zetterberg M, Lundström M, Stenevi U, Grenmark R, Sundelin K. Late dislocation of in-the-bag and out-of-the bag intraocular lenses: ocular and surgical characteristics and time to lens repositioning. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(10):1637–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.04.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gross JG, Kokame GT, Weinberg DV, Dislocated In-The-Bag Intraocular Lens Study Group. In-the-bag intraocular lens dislocation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(4):630–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2003.10.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bassily R, Lencova A, Rajan MS. Bilateral rupture of the posterior capsule and intraocular lens dislocation from excessive eye rubbing. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(2):329–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.01.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Abdelshafy M, Abdelshafy A. Functional and Structural Changes of the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Ganglion Cell Complex in Heavy Smokers. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:397–404. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S235892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Narnoli P, Dhasmana R, Khanduri R. Dry eye disease and retinal nerve fiber layer changes in chronic smokers. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69(5):1178–82. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_976_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dervişoğulları MS, Totan Y, Tenlik A, Yüce A, Güler E. Effect of smoking on retina nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer complex. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015;34(4):282–5. doi: 10.3109/15569527.2014.975240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Li J, Yuan N, Chu WK, Cheung CY, Tang S, Li FF, et al. Exposure to secondhand smoke in children is associated with a thinner retinal nerve fiber layer: The Hong Kong children eye study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;223:91–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cantor JO, Cerreta JM, Ochoa M, Ma S, Liu M, Turino GM. Therapeutic effects of hyaluronan on smoke-induced elastic fiber injury: does delayed treatment affect efficacy?. Lung. 2011;189(1):51–6. doi: 10.1007/s00408-010-9271-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hirata A, Okinami S, Hayashi K. Occurrence of capsular delamination in the dislocated in-the-bag intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(9):1409–15. doi: 10.1007/s00417-010-1605-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Laude A, Agrawal A. Spontaneous partial dislocation of an aphakic capsular bag in high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(2):427–8; author reply 428-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cheng HM, Singh OS, Kwong KK, Xiong J, Woods BT, Brady TJ. Shape of the myopic eye as seen with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69(9):698–701. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199209000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wilbrandt HR, Wilbrandt TH. Pathogenesis and management of the lens-iris diaphragm retropulsion syndrome during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994;20(1):48–53. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80043-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kristianslund O, Råen M, Østern AE, Drolsum L. Glaucoma and Intraocular Pressure in Patients Operated for Late In-the-bag Intraocular Lens Dislocation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;176:219–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.01.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bochmann F, Stürmer J. Chronic and Intermittent Angle Closure Caused by In-The-Bag Capsular Tension Ring and Intraocular Lens Dislocation in Patients With Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(11):1051–5. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ascaso FJ, Huerva V, Grzybowski A. Epidemiology, Etiology, and Prevention of Late IOL-Capsular Bag Complex Dislocation: Review of the Literature. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015:805706. doi: 10.1155/2015/805706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rohen JW. Scanning electron microscopic studies of the zonular apparatus in human and monkey eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1979;18(2):133–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Park YM, Lee JK, Kim SH, Chung EJ. Incidence and characteristics of intraocular lens dislocation in South Korea from 2002 to 2021: A nationwide population-based study. Korean Journal of Ophthalmology: KJO. 2024;38(5):354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kato S, Suzuki T, Hayashi Y, Numaga J, Hattori T, Yuguchi T, et al. Risk factors for contraction of the anterior capsule opening after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(1):109–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Davison JA. Capsule contraction syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;19(5):582–9. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80004-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Byrd JM, Young MP, Liu W, Zhang Y, Tate DB, Crandall AS, et al. Long-term outcomes for pediatric patients having transscleral fixation of the capsular bag with intraocular lens for ectopia lentis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(5):603–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chen Z, Zhang M, Deng M, Chen T, Chen J, Zheng J, et al. Surgical outcomes of modified capsular tension ring and intraocular lens implantation in Marfan syndrome with ectopia lentis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;11206721211012868. doi: 10.1177/11206721211012868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Luebke J, Reinhard T, Agostini H, Boehringer D, Eberwein P. Long-term follow-up after scleral lens fixation in patients with Marfan syndrome. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):235. doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0625-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P. Early postoperative intraocular pressure elevation following cataract surgery. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2019;30(1):56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Morgan RK, Skuta GL. Viscoelastic-related glaucomas. Semin Ophthalmol. 1994;9(4):229–34. doi: 10.3109/08820539409060020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Koichi Nishitsuka

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Intraocular Lens Dislocation: An Eight-Year Retrospective Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Koichi Nishitsuka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1-2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Abbreviation "UCVA"

The manuscript uses the term “UCVA” for uncorrected visual acuity. While this abbreviation is still used in some contexts, the internationally preferred and more precise term is “UDVA” (Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity), especially when referring to postoperative outcomes related to distance vision.

If the authors intentionally chose to use “UCVA,” we kindly ask that you clarify this in the Methods section or Abbreviations list, and ensure consistent usage throughout the manuscript. Otherwise, we recommend revising to “UDVA” for clarity and consistency with current standards.

2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for IOL dislocation are vague. Please clarify how dislocation was defined—e.g., complete dislocation versus subluxation—and whether objective thresholds (such as decentration >1 mm or tilt >10°) were applied.

The exclusion criterion, “poor ocular condition rendering examination infeasible,” is also too general. Please specify which conditions were excluded (e.g., corneal opacity, phthisis bulbi, trauma, etc.). A standardized and reproducible definition of inclusion/exclusion is essential.

3. Minimum Follow-up Period

No minimum postoperative follow-up duration is described. This is particularly important for cases included up to October 2024, which may not have had sufficient follow-up at the time of submission. Please state the minimum follow-up duration and confirm that all included cases met this criterion.

4. Timing of Visual Acuity Evaluation

The manuscript does not specify when postoperative visual acuity was measured (e.g., 1 week, 1 month, etc.). As visual recovery evolves over time, please provide the exact time points at which visual outcomes were assessed.

5. Lack of Stratified Outcome Analysis by Surgical Technique

The study includes multiple surgical approaches (e.g., IOL repositioning, exchange, removal), but outcomes are presented in aggregate. To enhance clinical utility, we recommend presenting visual acuity and complication rates stratified by surgical method.

6. Method for Assessing Postoperative IOL Position

The manuscript mentions that IOLs were in a “normal position” postoperatively, but the method for determining this is unclear. Was it based on slit-lamp examination alone, or were imaging modalities (e.g., anterior segment OCT or UBM) used? Please clarify.

7. Statistical Methodology

While the authors state that normality was tested, the method (e.g., Shapiro–Wilk) and results are not provided. Please specify how normality was assessed and confirm that appropriate statistical tests were used based on the distribution of data.

Additionally, given the dataset size (166 eyes), we encourage the use of multivariate analysis (e.g., logistic regression) to adjust for potential confounding factors (e.g., age, high myopia, prior vitrectomy, surgical method). This would greatly strengthen the validity of the conclusions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present an interesting retrospective study of 166 eyes with IOL dislocation.

English grammar and writing can be improved.

I would like to clarify some issues:

1. Abstract. The authors state that ‘no severe complications were observed, except for elevated intraocular pressure, which occurred in 11.04 percent of cases.’ Was IOP increase severe in 11.04%?

2. Abstract. According to the authors, ‘Postoperative visual acuity improved significantly postoperative visual acuity improved significantly’. Do you mean UDVA?

3. Abstract. The authors state that ‘no severe complications were observed.’ However, 12 eyes were not operated on because of ‘concerns about surgical outcomes’. In addition, 12 eyes did not receive an IOL. In my opinion, the sentence ‘no severe complications were observed’ is misleading.

4. Methods. Subjects. Three items appear before the exclusion criteria. Were they the inclusion criteria of the study?

5. Methods. Ophthalmological examinations. The authors state that they used IOL Master 500/700 but they do not explain how the IOL power was chosen.

6. Methods. IOL removal. Please explain why some eyes were not suitable to receive, for example, an iris-fixated IOL (eg. Artisan).

7. Results. Comorbid conditions. Please explain what ‘glaucoma’ is. There are different types of glaucoma (eg. pseudoexfoliative glaucoma).

8. Results. Comorbid conditions. Cataract appears with age, as hypertension, stents, cholecystectomy and diabetes. Therefore, these conditions are not rare in cataract patients. Please compare the incidence of both diseases in the group of patients with IOL dislocation and the control patients. Same with the ‘unhealthy habits.’

9. Results. Comorbid conditions. Macular edema may appear due to diabetes or inflammation. Please explain this issue.

10. Results. Please use UDVA (uncorrected distance visual acuity) instead of the old-fashioned UCVA.

11. Results. Although UDVA is interesting, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) must be given if you want to present your clinical results. Moreover, in some cases, the IOL was changed and an IOL with better power was implanted. This is a very important limitation of this study.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 25;20(6):e0327210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327210.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 May 2025

Response Letter to Reviewer Comments

We would like to thank the efforts of the editorial personnel and the reviewers. Comments are in black, our responses are in blue, and quotes from the manuscript or details are in purple.

SECTION 1 Journal Requirements

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have checked the style requirements of PLOS ONE, including document naming requirements, to ensure that the manuscript meets the requirements.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Response: We have provided additional details regarding the participant's consent, ensured that the type of informed consent and full anonymization of the data were specified, and provided the ethics approval number in the Methods section (Line 87-90).

All patient records and data were anonymized and de-identified. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (2022-KY-0006-001), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. In the case of minors, written consent was obtained from their guardians.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Response: Specific deidentified data sets have been made available in the Supplementary file, but there may be ethical or legal restrictions on public access because they contain potentially sensitive patient information.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Response: We have removed the ethics statement except for the Methods section.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1-2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Response: We have referenced Figures 1-2 correctly in the text.

6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Response: We have referenced Table 1 correctly in the text.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: We have included the title of the supporting information at the end of the manuscript and updated the corresponding textual citations.

SECTION 2 Additional Editor Comments

1. Abbreviation "UCVA"

The manuscript uses the term “UCVA” for uncorrected visual acuity. While this abbreviation is still used in some contexts, the internationally preferred and more precise term is “UDVA” (Uncorrected Distance Visual Acuity), especially when referring to postoperative outcomes related to distance vision.

If the authors intentionally chose to use “UCVA,” we kindly ask that you clarify this in the Methods section or Abbreviations list, and ensure consistent usage throughout the manuscript. Otherwise, we recommend revising to “UDVA” for clarity and consistency with current standards.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have revised the "UCVA" to "UDVA" in the full text.

2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for IOL dislocation are vague. Please clarify how dislocation was defined—e.g., complete dislocation versus subluxation—and whether objective thresholds (such as decentration >1 mm or tilt >10°) were applied.

The exclusion criterion, “poor ocular condition rendering examination infeasible,” is also too general. Please specify which conditions were excluded (e.g., corneal opacity, phthisis bulbi, trauma, etc.). A standardized and reproducible definition of inclusion/exclusion is essential.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have clarified the objective threshold for dislocation adoption and added specifics to the exclusion criteria in the inclusion section of the Methods section (Line 69-86).

Inclusion criteria:

(1) History of IOL implantation;

(2) Dislocation of the IOL or the IOL–capsular bag complex, confirmed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ophthalmoscopy, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), or optical coherence tomography (OCT), defined as dislocation >0.5 mm from the original position or tilt angle >7° following adequate mydriasis with tropicamide;

(3) Complete clinical and follow-up data, including detailed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative records, and at least one day of postoperative follow-up;

(4) Normal cognitive function and the ability to cooperate with ocular examinations.

Exclusion criteria:

(1) Severe corneal pathology, endophthalmitis, or other uncontrolled ocular conditions preventing necessary examinations;

(2) Incomplete clinical data, inadequate postoperative follow-up, or failure to comply with follow-up plans resulting in missing key pre- or postoperative data.

3. Minimum Follow-up Period

No minimum postoperative follow-up duration is described. This is particularly important for cases included up to October 2024, which may not have had sufficient follow-up at the time of submission. Please state the minimum follow-up duration and confirm that all included cases met this criterion.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have described the minimum duration of follow-up in the Methods section and confirmed that all enrolled cases met this criterion(Line 76-78).

Complete clinical and follow-up data, including detailed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative records, and at least one day of postoperative follow-up.

4. Timing of Visual Acuity Evaluation

The manuscript does not specify when postoperative visual acuity was measured (e.g., 1 week, 1 month, etc.). As visual recovery evolves over time, please provide the exact time points at which visual outcomes were assessed.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have described the time of postoperative visual acuity measurement (1 day after surgery) in the Methods section.

Complete clinical and follow-up data, including detailed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative records, and at least one day of postoperative follow-up.

5. Lack of Stratified Outcome Analysis by Surgical Technique

The study includes multiple surgical approaches (e.g., IOL repositioning, exchange, removal), but outcomes are presented in aggregate. To enhance clinical utility, we recommend presenting visual acuity and complication rates stratified by surgical method.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have shown visual acuity and complication rates stratified by different surgical methods in the results section(Line233-249).

Table 4 Comparison of UDVA between different surgical techniques for IOL dislocation*.

Surgical technique Preoperative UDVA Postoperative UDVA Z P

IOL repositioning�n=100� 0.70�0.30�1.28� 1.50�1.00�2.00� -3.187 0.001

IOL replacement�n=39� 0.40�0.80�1.30� 1.50�1.00�2.00� -2.159 0.031

IOL explantation�n=12� 1.35�0.94�2.00� 1.50�1.00�2.00� -0.352 0.725

6. Method for Assessing Postoperative IOL Position

The manuscript mentions that IOLs were in a “normal position” postoperatively, but the method for determining this is unclear. Was it based on slit-lamp examination alone, or were imaging modalities (e.g., anterior segment OCT or UBM) used? Please clarify.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have clarified in the text that the postoperative IOL position was based on slit-lamp examination (Line241-242).

On postoperative day one, slit-lamp examination confirmed that the IOLs were well-centered, without decentration or tilt.

7. Statistical Methodology

While the authors state that normality was tested, the method (e.g., Shapiro–Wilk) and results are not provided. Please specify how normality was assessed and confirm that appropriate statistical tests were used based on the distribution of data.

Additionally, given the dataset size (166 eyes), we encourage the use of multivariate analysis (e.g., logistic regression) to adjust for potential confounding factors (e.g., age, high myopia, prior vitrectomy, surgical method). This would greatly strengthen the validity of the conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have specified how normality is assessed and have used appropriate statistical tests according to the distribution of the data in the text(Line158-166).

Based on your suggestions, we will further use Logistic regression and other methods to adjust potential confounding factors in future case-control studies.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0. Data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Shapiro–Wilk test. Normally distributed continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared using independent samples t-tests. Non-normally distributed data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR), and compared using nonparametric rank-sum tests. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages and compared using the χ² test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

SECTION 3 Reviewers' comments

The authors present an interesting retrospective study of 166 eyes with IOL dislocation.

English grammar and writing can be improved.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have polished the full text again.

I would like to clarify some issues:

1. Abstract. The authors state that ‘no severe complications were observed, except for elevated intraocular pressure, which occurred in 11.04 percent of cases.’ Was IOP increase severe in 11.04%?

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have provided further clarification in the abstract section. The postoperative elevation of intraocular pressure in all patients was transient and controllable, and returned to normal within 3 days after intervention, so it was not severe(Line 29-31).

Postoperative transient intraocular pressure elevations were observed without significant differences between surgical methods, resolving within three days in all cases.

2. Abstract. According to the authors, ‘Postoperative visual acuity improved significantly postoperative visual acuity improved significantly’. Do you mean UDVA?

Response: Thank you for your advice. Postoperative visual acuity refers to the UDVA(Line 26-28). We have provided further clarification in the abstract section.

Of the 154 eyes that underwent surgical intervention, both IOL repositioning and exchange procedures resulted in significant improvements in UDVA (P < 0.05).

3. Abstract. The authors state that ‘no severe complications were observed.’ However, 12 eyes were not operated on because of ‘concerns about surgical outcomes’. In addition, 12 eyes did not receive an IOL. In my opinion, the sentence ‘no severe complications were observed’ is misleading.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. No severe complications were observed among patients who underwent surgical intervention. We originally expressed ambiguities, we have revised the abstract and clarified in the main text (Line 227-231).

Of the 166 eyes, 154 underwent surgical treatment. The remaining 12 eyes did not receive surgery due to low endothelial cell counts (<500 cells/mm²) or patient concerns about surgical outcomes (Table 3). All surgeries were completed successfully without intraoperative complications.

4. Methods. Subjects. Three items appear before the exclusion criteria. Were they the inclusion criteria of the study?

Response: Thank you for reminding us that we lost the "inclusion criteria".What appeared before the exclusion criteria were the inclusion criteria for the study, which we have clarified in the main text(Line 69-80).

Inclusion criteria:

(1) History of IOL implantation;

(2) Dislocation of the IOL or the IOL–capsular bag complex, confirmed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy, ophthalmoscopy, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), or optical coherence tomography (OCT), defined as dislocation >0.5 mm from the original position or tilt angle >7° following adequate mydriasis with tropicamide;

(3) Complete clinical and follow-up data, including detailed preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative records, and at least one day of postoperative follow-up;

(4) Normal cognitive function and the ability to cooperate with ocular examinations.

5. Methods. Ophthalmological examinations. The authors state that they used IOL Master 500/700 but they do not explain how the IOL power was chosen.

Response: Thank you for your advice. Because our study included 8 years of clinical data, during which the IOL Master 700 was introduced, before the introduction of the IOL Master 700 device, all data were collected with the IOL Master 500.

6. Methods. IOL removal. Please explain why some eyes were not suitable to receive, for example, an iris-fixated IOL (eg. Artisan).

Response: Thank you for your advice. Combined with our preoperative examination, we thought that the patient had the risk of corneal decompensation or visual acuity still not improved after IOL implantation. After communicating with the patient and his family, the patient and his family voluntarily chose not to accept it. We consider the implantation of an IOL to be an additional financial burden to the patient and his family in a situation where vision cannot be salvaged.

7.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0327210.s003.docx (40.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Koichi Nishitsuka

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of intraocular lens dislocation: an eight-year retrospective study

PONE-D-25-02020R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Koichi Nishitsuka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Koichi Nishitsuka

PONE-D-25-02020R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Koichi Nishitsuka

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw data and key statistical analysis procedures. This file contains the unprocessed raw data used in the study, the within-group rank sum test results, and the between-group Chi-square test procedures.

    (PDF)

    pone.0327210.s001.pdf (457.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0327210.s003.docx (40.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES