PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive results, the changes in contrast sensitivity, and the incidence of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after the implantation of UltraChoice 1.0 ThinOp-tX (ThinOptX Inc.) intraocular lens (IOL) and conventional acrylic foldable IOL (AcrySof MA30AC). METHODS:Twenty-five patients were randomized into two groups prospectively. In Group 1, microincisional phacoemulsification and the ThinOptX IOL implantation were applied in one eye, and in Group 2, conventional phacoemulsification and the AcrySof IOL implantation were applied in the fellow eye. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), contrast sensitivity, and the incidence of PCO were observed in the two groups and comparisons were made. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 12.8+/-1.5 months (range 11 to 14 months). In the last follow-up examination, UCVA and BCVA were significantly lower and the PCO scores were significantly higher in Group 1 (p<0.05). Although SIA was lower in Group 1, the difference was not statistically significant. Contrast sensitivity in higher spatial frequencies was significantly lower in Group 1 in the 6th month and 12th month visits. Capsular contraction was seen in 3 eyes (12%) in Group 1 whereas there was no capsular contraction or phimosis in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term evaluation of the ThinOptX IOL concludes with an increased rate of PCO, a diminished resistance to the capsular contraction vs the AcrySof IOL, and a decrease in visual performance. The poor after cataract performance of this rollable lens shows that microphacoemulsification and ThinOptX IOL implantation is not as effective as conventional hacoemulsification and AcrySof IOL implantation in the long term.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual and refractive results, the changes in contrast sensitivity, and the incidence of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after the implantation of UltraChoice 1.0 ThinOp-tX (ThinOptX Inc.) intraocular lens (IOL) and conventional acrylic foldable IOL (AcrySof MA30AC). METHODS: Twenty-five patients were randomized into two groups prospectively. In Group 1, microincisional phacoemulsification and the ThinOptX IOL implantation were applied in one eye, and in Group 2, conventional phacoemulsification and the AcrySof IOL implantation were applied in the fellow eye. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), contrast sensitivity, and the incidence of PCO were observed in the two groups and comparisons were made. RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 12.8+/-1.5 months (range 11 to 14 months). In the last follow-up examination, UCVA and BCVA were significantly lower and the PCO scores were significantly higher in Group 1 (p<0.05). Although SIA was lower in Group 1, the difference was not statistically significant. Contrast sensitivity in higher spatial frequencies was significantly lower in Group 1 in the 6th month and 12th month visits. Capsular contraction was seen in 3 eyes (12%) in Group 1 whereas there was no capsular contraction or phimosis in Group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term evaluation of the ThinOptX IOL concludes with an increased rate of PCO, a diminished resistance to the capsular contraction vs the AcrySof IOL, and a decrease in visual performance. The poor after cataract performance of this rollable lens shows that microphacoemulsification and ThinOptX IOL implantation is not as effective as conventional hacoemulsification and AcrySof IOL implantation in the long term.