Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.51(3) > 1008750

TOOLS
Mun, Im, Park, and Yoon: Comparison of Visual Function Between Two Aspheric Intraocular Lenses After Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2010;51(3):333-339.

Published online: 25 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.3.333

Comparison of Visual Function Between Two Aspheric Intraocular Lenses After Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery

Gui Hyeong Mun, MD, Seong Kyu Im, MD, Hong Yong Park, MD, Kyung Chul Yoon, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Kyung Chul Yoon, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School & Hospital #8 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-757, Korea Tel: 82-62-220-6742, Fax: 82-62-227-1642, E-mail: kcyoon@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 15 May 2009       Accepted 9 December 2009

Copyright © 2010 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the visual function and postoperative refraction between two aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs) after microcoaxial cataract surgery.

Methods

A prospective analysis of 60 eyes of 58 patients who had undergone microcoaxial phacoemulsification and implantation of aspheric IOLs (AcrySof IQ, 30 eyes; Akreos MI60, 30 eyes) was performed. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spherical equivalent, intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal thickness, endothelial cell density (ECD), predictability of postoperative spherical equivalent, higher order aberrations, contrast sensitivity test, satisfaction, and glare were evaluated during the follow-up period of three months.

Results

There were no significant differences in BCVA, spherical equivalent, IOP, corneal thickness, or ECD (p>0.05). The predictability of the postoperative spherical equivalent in the AcrySof IQ and Akreos MI60 IOL groups was not significantly different (p=0.59), and the two groups showed good anterior-posterior stability during the postoperative three months. There were no significant differences in higher order aberrations, contrast sensitivity test, satisfaction or glare (p>0.05).

Conclusions

Both AcrySof IQ and Akreos MI60 implantation groups showed similar visual functions and postoperative spherical equivalents after microcoaxial cataract surgery.

Keywords: AcrySof IQ, Akreos MI60, Aspheric intraocular lens, Microcoaxial cataract surgery, Visual function

References

1. Kellman CD. abdominal and aspiration; a new technique of cataract removal; a preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967; 64:23–35.
2. Vasavada V, Vasavada V, Raj SM, Vasavada AR. Intraoperative performance and postoperative outcomes of microcoaxial phacoemulsification. Observational study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1019–24.
3. Oscher RH, Injev VP. Microcoaxial phacoemulsification Part 1: laboratory studies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:401–7.
4. Oscher RH. Microcoaxial phacoemulsification Part 2: clinical studies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:408–12.
5. Werner L, Mamalis N. Wavefront corrections of intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:233–45.
crossref
6. Chalita MR, Krueger RR. Correlation of aberrations with visual acuity and symptoms. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:135–42.
crossref
7. Guirao A, Redondo M, Geraghty E, et al. Corneal optical aberrations and retinal image quality in patients whom monofocal intraocular lenses were implanted. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:1143–51.
8. Holladay JT, Moran JR, Kezirian GM. Analysis of aggregate surgically induced refractive change, prediction error, and intraocular astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:206–7.
crossref
9. Huang FC, Tseng SH. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after sutureless temporal clear corneal and scleral frown incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:477–81.
crossref
10. Lee DS, Joo CK. Effect of incision length on visual recovery and astigmatism in no-suture cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1992; 33:470–5.
11. Hu YJ, Joo CK. Surgically induced astigmatism after temporal clear corneal incision in sutureless cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 39:2622–7.
12. Jee DH, Lee PY, Joo CK. The comparison of astigmatism according to the incision size in cataract operation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:594–8.
13. Kim HJ, Kim JH, Lee DH. Endothelial cell damage in microincision cataract surgery and coaxial phacoemulsification. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1630–5.
14. Cavallini GM, Campi L, Masini C, et al. Bimanual microphacoemulsification vs coaxial miniphacoemulsification: Prospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:387–92.
15. Choi JA, Chung SK, Kim HS. Comparative Study of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery and Conventional Cataract Surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:904–10.
crossref
16. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Risk factors for corneal endothelial injury during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:1079–84.
crossref
17. Dick HB, Kohnen T, Jacobi FK, Jacobi KW. abdominal endothelial cell loss following phacoemulsification through a temporal clear corneal incision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:63–71.
18. Joussen AM, Barth U, Cubuk H, Koch H. Effect of irrigating abdominal and irrigation temperature on the cornea and pupil during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:392–7.
19. Bourne RR, Minassian DC, Dart JK, et al. Effect of cataract abdominal on the corneal endothelium; modern phacoemulsification compared with extracapsular cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:679–85.
20. Suzuki H, Takahashi H, Hori J, et al. Phacoemulsification abdominal corneal damage evaluated by corneal volume. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:525–8.
21. Prakash P, Kasaby HE, Aggarwal RK, Humfrey S. Microincision bimanual phacoemulsification and Thinoptx implantation through a 1.70 mm incision. Eye. 2007; 21:177–82.
22. Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G, et al. Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: Microincision versus standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:1351–4.
crossref
23. Pandita D, Raj SM, Vasavada VA, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after implantation of acrySof IQ natural aspheric intraocular lens; prospective randomized masked clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:603–10.
24. Caporossi A, Martone G, Casprini F, et al. Prospective abdominal study of clinical performance of 3 aspheric and spherical abdominal lenses in 250 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 23:639–48.
25. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS. Aspheric intraocular lens se-lection; the evolution of refractive cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19:1–4.
crossref
26. Kohnen T, Klaproth OK. Aspheric intraocular lenses. Ophthalmologe. 2008; 105:234–40.

Figure 1.
Changes in the spherical equivalent after microcoaxial cataract surgery in the two aspheric intraocular lenses groups.
jkos-51-333f1.tif
Figure 2.
Changes in the surgically induced astigmatism in the two aspheric intraocular lenses groups.
jkos-51-333f2.tif
Figure 3.
Comparison of contrast sensitivity under photopic condition and mesopic condition three months postoperatively.
jkos-51-333f3.tif
Table 1.
Patients demographics in aspheric intraocular lens groups during microcoaxial cataract surgery
Variables AcrySof IQ Akreos MI60 p-value
Number of patients / eyes 28 / 30 30 / 30  
Mean age (year) 71.67±12.76 (47∼85) 73.16±8.15 (58∼89) 0.44
Sex (M/F) 13 / 15 16 / 14 0.78
Mean follow-up period (month) 3.4±0.4 3.3±0.2 0.62
Table 2.
Comparison of surgical parameters during microcoaxial cataract surgery in both groups
Variables Total (n=60) AcrySof IQ (n=30) Akreos MI60 (n=30) p-value
CDE* 8.17±4.12 8.06±3.73 8.29±4.66 0.87
Torsional time (sec) 54.18±20.29 53.33±21.56 55.24±19.19 0.76
Torsional amplitude 17.55±7.77 15.15±6.58 20.48±8.29 0.34
BSS used(ml) 57.20±13.97 62.00±15.39 51.33±9.41 0.14

* CDE=cumulative dissipated energy.

Table 3.
Data of ocular wavefront aberrations computed for a 6.0-mm pupil after microcoaxial cataract surgery
  Zernike's coefficients AcrySof IQ Akreos MI60 p-value
1 month after RMS total* 1.623±0.897 2.026±0.644 0.18
operation RMS HOA† 0.713±0.439 0.885±0.413 0.22
  Z3−1 –0.042±0.029 –0.051±0.045 0.94
  Z13 –0.164±0.125 –0.156±0.104 0.91
  Z3−3 –0.192±0.146 0.061±0.022 0.25
  Z33 –0.183±0.155 –0.121±0.098 0.19
  Z40 0.061±0.034 0.101±0.062 0.11
3 months after RMS total 1.698±0.724 2.011±0.644 0.14
operation RMS HOA 0.801±0.531 0.874±0.623 0.19
  Z3−1 –0.037±0.032 –0.043±0.039 0.96
  Z31 –0.173±0.147 –0.158±0.151 0.91
  Z3−3 –0.143±0.159 0.054±0.032 0.35
  Z33 –0.191±0.120 –0.119±0.075 0.20
  Z40 0.056±0.051 0.107±0.074 0.10

* RMS total=root mean square of total aberrations

† RMS HOA=root mean square of total higher order aberrations.

Table 4.
Characteristics of two aspheric intraocular lenses used in microcoaxial cataract surgery25,26
Characteristics AcrySof IQ SN60WF Akreos MI60
Lens One piece One piece
Optic material Hydrophobic acrylic Hydrophobic acrylic
Refractive index 1.55 1.458
Optic size (mm) 6 5.6∼6.2
Overall length (mm) 13 10.5∼11.0
Design Prolate posterior surface Biconcave aspheric anterior and posterior
Haptic angulation 0 10
Haptic material Hydrophobic acrylic Hydrophilic acrylic
TOOLS
Similar articles