| Clinical Outcomes After Microincision Cataract Surgery and In-the-bag Implantation of a New Intraocular Lens. |
|
Chul Jin Shin, Joo Eun Lee, Jae Hyung Lee, Jae Yong Kim, Hungwon Tchah |
|
Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. HungTchah@amc.seoul.kr |
| 새로운 인공수정체를 낭내 삽입한 미세각막절개 백내장 수술의 임상평가 |
|
신철진ㆍ이주은ㆍ김재형ㆍ김재용ㆍ차흥원 |
|
Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
|
|
| Abstract |
PURPOSE
To compare visual performance after microincision cataract surgery (MICS) with the implantation of the Akreos MI-60 (MI-60) intraocular lens (IOL) through a 1.8-mm microincision with that after conventional cataract surgery with implantation of the Akreos Adapt-AO IOL (Adapt-AO). METHODS: All MICS procedures were performed by the same surgeon. The MI-60 was implanted into 25 eyes, and the Adapt-AO was place in 28 eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), total high-order-aberration (HOA), contrast sensitivity, and surgically- induced astigmatism (SIA) were recorded one-week, one-month, and four-months postoperatively. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in BCVA between eyes implanted with the MI-60 or those with the Adapt-AO (MI-60 vs. Adapt-AO, 0.09+/-0.11 at baseline (logMAR), 0.11+/-0.08 at one-week, 0.06+/-0.07, 0.06+/-0.06 at one-month, 0.05+/-0.06, 0.06+/-0.05 at four-months according to the Mann-Whitney U test, p>0.05). Refractive errors were significantly less with the Adapt-AO than with the MI-60 (MI-60 vs. Adapt-AO, -0.50+/-0.43 at baseline (diopter), -0.06+/-0.39 at one-week, -0.50+/-0.41, 0.01+/-0.57 at one-month, -0.46+/-0.36, 0.08+/-0.58 at four-months according to the Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in total HOA or contrast sensitivity between eyes implanted with the MI-60 and those implanted with the Adapt-AO. SIAs were significantly reduced in eyes implanted with the MI-60 than in those with the Adapt-AO at one-month and four-months postoperatively (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation with either the MI-60 or the Adapt-AO produced clinically acceptable outcomes, including good spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity. Furthermore, implantation with the MI-60 caused less SIA at one- and four-months postoperation, as compared to that with the Adapt-AO. |
| Key Words:
Contrast sensitivity;Microincision cataract surgery;Phacoemulsification;Spherical aberration;Surgically-induced astigmatism |
|
PDF Links
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
