Clinical Results of Centerflex(R) Intraocular Ocular Lenses and Acrysof(R) Intraocular Ocular Lenses in Bilateral Cataracts

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of hydrophilic acrylic IOL 570H (Centerflex(R), Rayner, UK) with those of hydrophobic acrylic IOL MA60BM (Acrysof(R), Alcon, USA). METHODS: Centerflex(R) and Acrysof(R) were each implanted in one eye of 31 patients with bilateral cataracts. We evaluated and compared best corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR), refractive error, anterior capsular fibrosis, and posterior capsular opacification at mean 9.3 months after surgery. RESULTS: BCVA (logMAR) was 0.04 +/- 0.07 in the Centerflex(R) group and 0.03 +/- 0.07 in the Acrysof(R) group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Refractive error was -0.23 +/- 0.76 diopter (D) in the Centerflex(R) group and 0.09 +/- 0.61 D in the Acrysof(R) group. There was a statistically significant difference of refractive error between the two groups (p=0.02). In the Centerflex(R) group, the rates of both anterior capsular fibrosis and posterior capsular opacification were statistically significantly higher than those in the Acrysof(R) group (both, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference of postoperative visual acuity between Centerflex(R) and Acrysof(R) lenses implanted in the bag after phacoemulsification. However, mean refractive error in eyes implanted with Centerflex(R) lens was -0.23 D at mean 9.3 months after surgery and we recommended that the preoperative target refraction of the Centerflex(R) lens be 0.23 D hyperopic and that postoperative anterior capsular fibrosis and posterior capsular opacification be checked carefully.

Clinical Results of Acrysof IOLs and Acryl-C160 IOLs in Complicated Cataracts

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of one-piece Acryl IOL C160 (Opthalmed(R), USA) with those of three-piece Acryl IOL AcrySof (MA60BM, Alcon(R), USA) in complicated cataracts. METHODS: In one eye of 30 patients with complicated cataracts, Acryl-C160 IOL was implanted and AcrySof IOL in the other eye. The degrees of anterior capsular fibrosis and posterior capsular opacification together with IOL decentration were evaluated for 12months prospectively. RESULTS: In 9 of 30 eyes with Acryl-C160 IOL, significant fibrosis of anterior capsule was seen as early as 1 month postoperatively. At 12 months, 15 eyes had more than grade 3 of capsular fibrosis. Five eyes had severe contraction of IOL haptic and one eye had significant IOL degradation to be exchanged. On the contrary, 2 of 30 eyes implanted with AcrySof IOL had moderate degree of capsular fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In complicated cataracts, Acryl-C160 IOL developed higher incidence of postoperative complications due to the inflammation and poor memory function of IOL haptic. The type and design of IOL haptic together with the function of IOL optic should be considered in selecting the IOLs best fitted in complicated cataracts.

The Comparisons of Clincal Results of Ac rySof and PMMA Intraocular Lens Implantation in Diabetic Cataract: Six Months Follow-up

To compare the clinical results of AcrySof intraocular lens (IOL)and Polymethyl methacrylate(PMMA)IOL implantation in diabetic patients,a total of 58 eyes(48 patients)were analyzed.AcrySof IOL was implanted in 24 eyes with small incision technique,and PMMA IOL was implanted in 34 eyes with enlarged scleral wound.Posterior capsular opacity(PCO)developed in only 2 eyes in AcrySof group,while it occurred in 4 eyes in PMMA group.Anterior capsular fibrosis developed in 4 eyes and IOL-iris synechiae developed in 2 eyes in PMMA group after follow-up of 6 months.No statis-tically significant difference was found in the incidence of PCO between two groups(p>0.05). AcrySof IOL leads to faster visual rehabilitation than PMMA lens. Therefore,use of AcrySof IOL can be more beneficial in diabetic cataractpatients who might need laser photocoagulation or pars plana vitrectomy in the future.