Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2008
[Comparison of postoperative results after implantation of hydrophilic acrylic or hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens: data of one-year prospective clinical study].
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zemaitiene Reda, Speckauskas Martynas, Glebauskiene Brigita, Jasinskas Vytautas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the impact of two sharp-edge optic foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) of similar design made from different material (hydrophilic acrylic or hydrophobic acrylic) on visual function, anterior and posterior capsule opacification at one-year follow-up after cataract phacoemulsification.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two eyes of 72 patients scheduled for cataract surgery were included in a prospective clinical study. Two foldable sharp-edge optic posterior chamber acrylic IOLs of similar design were used. Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients received a single-piece hydrophilic acrylic (PC 511, Ophtec) IOL and 33 eyes of 33 patients - single-piece hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, SA60AT, Alcon) IOL. Visual acuity, anterior capsule opacification (ACO), capsulorrhexis/optic overlapping, and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) were evaluated. The intensity of ACO was assessed subjectively. PCO values in the entire IOL optic area and in the central 3-mm optic zone were assessed using a photographic image analysis system (EPCO 2000). The patients were examined at one year postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity and capsulorrhexis/optic overlapping between IOL types at 1-year follow-up after surgery. In the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group, the grade of ACO density was significantly higher in capsulorrhexis rim area (1.56+/-0.71 and 1.00+/-0.75) and in the capsule/optic area (1.62+/-0.67 and 1.00+/-0.75) (P<0.05). PCO values of the entire IOL optic area (0.12+/-0.13 and 0.024+/-0.02) as well as in the central 3-mm optic zone (0.06+/-0.11 and 0.001+/-0.003) was significantly higher in the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group one year postoperatively (P<0.05). In 33.3% of cases of the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group, contraction of haptics to IOL optics was present one year postoperatively, which was not present in any case of the single-piece hydrophobic acrylic IOL group.
CONCLUSIONS: One-year follow-up after cataract surgery has shown a significant difference in ACO and PCO development comparing single-piece hydrophilic acrylic and single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. The effect of hydrophobic acrylic foldable lenses on preventing anterior and posterior capsule opacification is mainly a result of the acrylic hydrophobic biomaterial.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two eyes of 72 patients scheduled for cataract surgery were included in a prospective clinical study. Two foldable sharp-edge optic posterior chamber acrylic IOLs of similar design were used. Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients received a single-piece hydrophilic acrylic (PC 511, Ophtec) IOL and 33 eyes of 33 patients - single-piece hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, SA60AT, Alcon) IOL. Visual acuity, anterior capsule opacification (ACO), capsulorrhexis/optic overlapping, and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) were evaluated. The intensity of ACO was assessed subjectively. PCO values in the entire IOL optic area and in the central 3-mm optic zone were assessed using a photographic image analysis system (EPCO 2000). The patients were examined at one year postoperatively.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity and capsulorrhexis/optic overlapping between IOL types at 1-year follow-up after surgery. In the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group, the grade of ACO density was significantly higher in capsulorrhexis rim area (1.56+/-0.71 and 1.00+/-0.75) and in the capsule/optic area (1.62+/-0.67 and 1.00+/-0.75) (P<0.05). PCO values of the entire IOL optic area (0.12+/-0.13 and 0.024+/-0.02) as well as in the central 3-mm optic zone (0.06+/-0.11 and 0.001+/-0.003) was significantly higher in the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group one year postoperatively (P<0.05). In 33.3% of cases of the single-piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL group, contraction of haptics to IOL optics was present one year postoperatively, which was not present in any case of the single-piece hydrophobic acrylic IOL group.
CONCLUSIONS: One-year follow-up after cataract surgery has shown a significant difference in ACO and PCO development comparing single-piece hydrophilic acrylic and single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. The effect of hydrophobic acrylic foldable lenses on preventing anterior and posterior capsule opacification is mainly a result of the acrylic hydrophobic biomaterial.