Comparison of posterior capsule opacification and glistenings with 2 hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: 5-to 7-year follow-up
2013 (English)In: Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, ISSN 0886-3350, E-ISSN 1873-4502, Vol. 39, no 5, 694-698 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
PURPOSE: To compare posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and glistenings 5 to 7 years after cataract surgery with implantation of 2 hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) and evaluate the effects on corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and contrast sensitivity. SETTING: St. Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Cataract surgery with standard phacoemulsification was performed in 1 eye of patients. The patients were randomized to an Acrysof SA60AT (1-piece IOL group) or a Sensar AR40e (3-piece IOL group), both hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with a sharp-edged design. Five to 7 years postoperatively, retroillumination images were obtained and the PCO area and severity (area affected within the capsulorhexis and severity) were evaluated using computer software. High-contrast (100%) and low-contrast (2.5%) CDVAs were measured. The neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy rates were recorded. Scheimpflug images were obtained to evaluate glistenings, which were graded subjectively at the slitlamp and quantified objectively by digital image analysis using computer software. RESULTS: The study enrolled 80 patients. There were no significant differences in PCO between the 2 groups. The 3-piece IOL group had significantly fewer glistenings (P<.001). There was good correlation between the subjective grading of glistenings and objective computer-processed image grading. The glistenings were not correlated with IOL power, CDVA, or contrast sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in PCO between the 2 acrylic hydrophobic IOLs 5 to 7 years postoperatively. The 1-piece IOL group developed more glistenings than the 3-piece IOL group.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 39, no 5, 694-698 p.
Medical and Health Sciences
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-73080DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.11.032ISI: 000318831800007OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-73080DiVA: diva2:630009