ScholarLens Back to search
2016•Seminars in OphthalmologyRequires access

Posterior Capsule Opacification and Nd:YAG Rates with Two Acrylic Intraocular Lenses after Age-Related Cataract Treatment: Three-year Results

Miro Kalauz, Sanja Masnec, Rajko Kordić, Tomislav Kuzman, Sania Vidas Pauk, Ivan Škegro, Sonja Jandroković, Sanja Perić

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence and intensity of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) between two intraocular lenses (IOLs) over three years. METHODS: Eighty-three patients underwent cataract surgery with implantation of Acreos Adapt AO or Acrysof SA60AT. PCO values were assessed using a photographic image analysis system (EPCO 2000) and the amount of PCO at the slit lamp. RESULTS: Mean PCO score was 2.78 ± 1.55 for the Acreos Adapt AO and 2.32 ± 1.20 for the Acrysof SA60AT (P=.229). There were no significant differences in the median EPCO values in the entire IOL optics area (0.60 ± 0.26 vs 0.58 ± 0.23; P=.745) and in the central 3-mm zone (0.28 ± 0.13 vs 0.27 ± 0.12; P=.638). Neodymium:YAG capsulotomy was performed in 28% of eyes with Acreos Adapt AO and 23.33% with Acrysof SA60AT (P=.692). CONCLUSION: Both IOLs had comparable PCO and Nd:YAG rates three years postoperatively.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence and intensity of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) between two intraocular lenses (IOLs) over three years. METHODS: Eighty-three patients underwent cataract surgery with implantation of Acreos Adapt AO or Acrysof SA60AT. PCO values were assessed using a photographic image analysis system (EPCO 2000) and the amount of PCO at the slit lamp. RESULTS: Mean PCO score was 2.78 ± 1.55 for the Acreos Adapt AO and 2.32 ± 1.20 for the Acrysof SA60AT (P=.229). There were no significant differences in the median EPCO values in the entire IOL optics area (0.60 ± 0.26 vs 0.58 ± 0.23; P=.745) and in the central 3-mm zone (0.28 ± 0.13 vs 0.27 ± 0.12; P=.638). Neodymium:YAG capsulotomy was performed in 28% of eyes with Acreos Adapt AO and 23.33% with Acrysof SA60AT (P=.692). CONCLUSION: Both IOLs had comparable PCO and Nd:YAG rates three years postoperatively.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence and intensity of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) between two intraocular lenses (IOLs) over three years. METHODS: Eighty-three patients underwent cataract surgery with implantation of Acreos Adapt AO or Acrysof SA60AT. PCO values were assessed using a photographic image analysis system (EPCO 2000) and the amount of PCO at the slit lamp. RESULTS: Mean PCO score was 2.78 ± 1.55 for the Acreos Adapt AO and 2.32 ± 1.20 for the Acrysof SA60AT (P=.229). There were no significant differences in the median EPCO values in the entire IOL optics area (0.60 ± 0.26 vs 0.58 ± 0.23; P=.745) and in the central 3-mm zone (0.28 ± 0.13 vs 0.27 ± 0.12; P=.638). Neodymium:YAG capsulotomy was performed in 28% of eyes with Acreos Adapt AO and 23.33% with Acrysof SA60AT (P=.692). CONCLUSION: Both IOLs had comparable PCO and Nd:YAG rates three years postoperatively.

Key concepts: Posterior capsule opacification, Capsulotomy, Intraocular lenses, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Intraocular lens, Pseudophakia, Capsule

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Posterior Capsule Opacification and Nd:YAG Rates with Two Acrylic Intraocular Lenses after Age-Related Cataract Treatment: Three-year Results — Research Paper | ScholarLens