S Kang1, M-J Kim, S-H Park, C-K Joo. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kangnam St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of heparin surface modified (HSM) hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) with those of hydrophobic acrylic IOL. METHODS:One hundred patients with cataract were randomized to receive one of acrylic foldable IOLs after phacoemulsification: HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL (n=50) BioVue3 (BioVue, OII, Ontario, CA, USA) and hydrophobic acrylic IOL (n=50) Sensar (AR40e, AMO, Santa Ana, CA, USA). Bestcorrected visual acuity and refractive error were measured at 1 week, 2 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery in both IOL groups. To assess posterior capsular opacification (PCO), digital retroillumination image of posterior capsule was analyzed at 12 months using POCOman software. RESULTS:Best-corrected visual acuity (log MAR) was 0.032+/-0.082 in BioVue3 group and 0.034+/-0.077 in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.554). Refractive error was -0.247+/-0.821 diopter in BioVue3 group and -0.264+/-0.808 diopter in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference of refractive error between the two groups (p=0.909). At 12 months, BioVue3 IOL group had a lower percentage area and severity of PCO than Sensar group. However, it was not statistically significant (p=0.349, p=0.288). No Nd:YAG capsulotomy was performed in BioVue3 group while it was required in two eyes (4.0%) in Sensar group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference of postoperative visual acuity, refractive error and degree of PCO between HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL and hydrophobic acrylic IOL.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of heparin surface modified (HSM) hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) with those of hydrophobic acrylic IOL. METHODS: One hundred patients with cataract were randomized to receive one of acrylic foldable IOLs after phacoemulsification: HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL (n=50) BioVue3 (BioVue, OII, Ontario, CA, USA) and hydrophobic acrylic IOL (n=50) Sensar (AR40e, AMO, Santa Ana, CA, USA). Bestcorrected visual acuity and refractive error were measured at 1 week, 2 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery in both IOL groups. To assess posterior capsular opacification (PCO), digital retroillumination image of posterior capsule was analyzed at 12 months using POCOman software. RESULTS: Best-corrected visual acuity (log MAR) was 0.032+/-0.082 in BioVue3 group and 0.034+/-0.077 in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.554). Refractive error was -0.247+/-0.821 diopter in BioVue3 group and -0.264+/-0.808 diopter in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference of refractive error between the two groups (p=0.909). At 12 months, BioVue3 IOL group had a lower percentage area and severity of PCO than Sensar group. However, it was not statistically significant (p=0.349, p=0.288). No Nd:YAG capsulotomy was performed in BioVue3 group while it was required in two eyes (4.0%) in Sensar group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference of postoperative visual acuity, refractive error and degree of PCO between HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL and hydrophobic acrylic IOL.
Authors: R Liegl; M Kernt; K Obholzer; A Wolf; R Schumann; C Haritoglou; A Kampik; K H Eibl-Lindner Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: C Wertheimer; R Liegl; M Kernt; W Mayer; D Docheva; A Kampik; K H Eibl-Lindner Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 3.117