Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2009
Comparison of posterior capsular opacification in heparin-surface-modified hydrophilic acrylic and hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kang Seungbum, Choi Jin A, Joo Choun-Ki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare posterior capsular opacification (PCO) in a heparin-surface-modified (HSM) hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) and a hydrophobic acrylic IOL.
METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with simple cataract were randomized to receive either the BioVue 3 HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL (Ophthalmic Innovations International, Ontario, CA, USA) (n = 38) or the Sensar AR40e hydrophobic acrylic IOL (AMO, Santa Ana, CA, USA) (n = 40). Another 99 patients with complicated cataract received either the BioVue 3 (n = 49) or the Sensar AR40e IOL (n = 50). Twelve months after surgery, POCOman software was used to analyze digital retroillumination photographs of the PCO.
RESULTS: In the simple cataract group, the respective PCO areas, expressed as a percentage and PCO severity scores at 12 months were 6.12% and 0.081 in the BioVue 3 group and 5.91% and 0.075 in the Sensar AR40e group. There was no statistically significant difference in the PCO area or the PCO severity score between the two IOLs (P = 0.631, P = 0.495, respectively). In the complicated cataract group, the respective PCO areas and PCO severity scores were 35.80% and 0.181 in the BioVue 3 group and 27.17% and 0.110 in the Sensar AR40e group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two IOLs (P = 0.147, P = 0.162).
CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the degree or severity of PCO between the HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL and the hydrophobic acrylic IOL groups.
METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with simple cataract were randomized to receive either the BioVue 3 HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL (Ophthalmic Innovations International, Ontario, CA, USA) (n = 38) or the Sensar AR40e hydrophobic acrylic IOL (AMO, Santa Ana, CA, USA) (n = 40). Another 99 patients with complicated cataract received either the BioVue 3 (n = 49) or the Sensar AR40e IOL (n = 50). Twelve months after surgery, POCOman software was used to analyze digital retroillumination photographs of the PCO.
RESULTS: In the simple cataract group, the respective PCO areas, expressed as a percentage and PCO severity scores at 12 months were 6.12% and 0.081 in the BioVue 3 group and 5.91% and 0.075 in the Sensar AR40e group. There was no statistically significant difference in the PCO area or the PCO severity score between the two IOLs (P = 0.631, P = 0.495, respectively). In the complicated cataract group, the respective PCO areas and PCO severity scores were 35.80% and 0.181 in the BioVue 3 group and 27.17% and 0.110 in the Sensar AR40e group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two IOLs (P = 0.147, P = 0.162).
CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the degree or severity of PCO between the HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL and the hydrophobic acrylic IOL groups.