Comparison of Clinical Results Between Two Spherical Aberraion-Free Intraocular Lenses

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

doi:10.3341/jkos.2010.51.5.670

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.51(5) > 1008807

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Mun, Im, Park, and Yoon: Comparison of Clinical Results Between Two Spherical Aberraion-Free Intraocular Lenses

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2010;51(5):670-676.

Published online: 25 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.5.670

Comparison of Clinical Results Between Two Spherical Aberraion-Free Intraocular Lenses

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, Gwang-ju 501-757, Korea Tel: 82-62-220-6742, Fax: 82-62-227-1642, E-mail: kcyoon@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 14 September 2009 Accepted 4 February 2010

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 postoperative outcomes between Akreos MI60 and Akreos AO intraocular lens (IOLs) after cataract surgery.

Methods

A prospective analysis among 55 eyes of 55 patients who had undergone microcoaxial phacoemulsification and implantation of aspheric IOLs (Akreos MI60, 30 eyes; Akreos Adapt-AO, 25 eyes) was performed. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), spherical equivalent, intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal thickness, endothelial cell density (ECD), surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), predictability of postoperative spherical equivalent, higher order aberrations, and contrast sensitivity test were evaluated during the follow-up period of 3 months.

Results

There were no significant differences in BCVA, spherical equivalent, IOP, corneal thickness, ECD, SIA, higher order aberrations and contrast sensitivity test (p＞0.05). The predictability of postoperative spherical equivalent in the Akreos Adapt-AO (−0.57±0.22D) represented statistically significant myopic shift compared with the Akreos MI60 group (−0.05±0.69D) (p=0.02).

Conclusions

Both the Akreos MI60 and the Akreos Adapt-AO implantation groups performed similiarly, following cataract surgery, showed similar visual function.

Keywords: Akreos Adapt-AO, 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 abdominal and postoperative outcomes of microcoaxial phacoemulsification. Observational study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1019–24.

3. Yamaguchi T, Dogru M, Yamaguchi K, et al. Effect of spherical aberration on visual function under photopic and mesopic conditions after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:57–63.

4. Kershner RM. Clear corneal cataract surgery and the correction of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. Ophthalmology. 1997; 104:381–9.

5. Cravy TV. Calculation of the change in corneal astigmatism following cataract extraction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1979; 10:38–49.

6. Simsek S, Yasar T, Demirok A, et al. Effect of superior and temporal clear corneal incision on astigmatism after sutureless phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:515–8.

7. Hwang SJ, Choi SK, Oh SH, et al. Surgically Induced Astigmatism and Corneal Higher Order Aberrations in Microcoaxial and Conventional Cataract Surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1597–602.

8. Werner L, Mamalis N. Wavefront corrections of intraocular lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:233–45.

9. Chalita MR, Krueger RR. Correlation of aberrations with visual acuity and symptoms. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:135–42.

10. Guirao A, Redondo M, Geraghty E, et al. Corneal optical aberrations and retinal image quality in patients whom monofocal intraocular abdominal were implanted. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; 120:1143–51.

11. Wang L, Dai E, Koch DD, Nathoo A. Optical aberrations of the abdominal anterior cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1514–21.

12. Holladay JT, Piers PA, Koranyi G, et al. A new intraocular lens design to reduce spherical aberration of pseudophakic eyes. J Refract Surg. 2002; 18:683–91.

13. Dick HB. Recent developments in aspheric intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009; 20:25–32.

14. Altmann GE, Nichamin LD, Lane SS, Pepose JS. Optical performance of 3 intraocular lens designs in the presence of decentration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:574–85.

15. Holladay JT, Cravy TV, Koch DD. Calculating the surgically induced refractive change following ocular surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:429–43.

16. Huang FC, Teng SH. Compression of surgically induced astigmatism after sutureless temporal clear corneal and slceral frown incision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:477–81.

17. 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.

18. Kim HJ, Kim JH, Lee DH. Endothelial cell damage in microincision cataract surgery and coaxial phacoemulsification. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:19–26.

19. Cavallini GM, Campi L, Masini C, et al. Bimanual microphacoemulsification vs coaxial miniphacoemulsification: Prospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:387–92.

20. Choi JA, Chung SK, Kim HS. Comparative Study of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery and Conventional Cataract Surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:904–10.

21. 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.

22. Oscher RH, Injev VP. Microcoaxial phacoemulsification Part 1: abdominal studies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:401–7.

23. Oscher RH. Microcoaxial phacoemulsification Part 2: clinical studies. J cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:408–12.

24. Alió J, Rodriguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M. Outcomes of abdominal cataract versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:1997–2003.

25. Masket S, Wang L, Belani S. Induced astigmatism with 2.2- and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg. 2009; 25:21–4.

26. Hyashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:233–9.

27. Johansson B, Sundelin S, Wikberg-Matsson A, et al. Visual and optical performance of the Akreos Adapt Advanced Optics and Tecnis Z9000 intraocular lenses: Swedish multicenter study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1565–72.

28. Choi JA, Kim CY, Na KS, et al. Clinical results after implantation of a spherical aberration-free intraocular lens: Effect of contrast abdominal and wavefront aberration – a clinical comparative study. Ophthalmologica. 2009; 223:320–5.

29. Shentu X, Tang X, Yao K. Spherical aberration, visual performance and pseudoaccommodation of eyes implanted with different aspheric intraocular lens. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008; 36:620–4.

Figure 1.

Changes of the spherical equivalent in the two aspheric intraocular lens groups.

Figure 2.

Changes of the surgically induced astigmatism in the two aspheric intraocular lens groups.

Figure 3.

Comparison of contrast sensitivity test under photopic and mesopic condition at postoperative three months.

Table 1.

Demographics of patients between two aspheric intraocular lens groups

Variables	Akreos MI60 group (n=30)	Akreos Adapt-AO group (n=25)
Number of patients / eyes	30 / 30	25 / 25
Mean age (years)	73.16±8.15 (58∼89)	67.6±12.6 (47∼85)
Sex (M/F)	16 / 14	11 / 14
Mean follow-up period (month)	3.3±0.2	3.4±0.3

Table 2.

Comparison of surgical parameters between two aspheric intraocular lens groups

Variables	Akreos MI60 gruop (n=30)	Akreos Adapt-AO group (n=25)	p-value
CDE^*	8.29±4.66	7.01±3.63	0.10
Torsional time (sec)	55.24±19.19	53.31±20.56	0.67
Torsional amplitude	20.48±8.29	17.95±7.51	0.26
BSS used (ml)	51.33±9.41	60.02±14.52	0.11

^* CDE=cumulative dissipated energy

Table 3.

Data of ocular wavefront aberrations computed for a 6.0 mm pupil

	Zernike's coefficients	Akreos MI60	Akreos Adapt-AO	p-value
1 month after operation	RMS total^*	2.026±0.644	2.035±0.413	0.26
	RMS HOA^†	0.885±0.413	0.913±0.439	0.32
	–1 Z₃	–0.051±0.045	–0.063±0.049	0.84
	1 Z₃	–0.156±0.104	–0.096±0.112	0.12
	–3 Z₃	0.061±0.022	0.069±0.039	0.25
	3 Z₃	–0.121±0.098	–0.116±0.072	0.19
	0 Z₄	0.101±0.062	0.115±0.078	0.52
3 months after operation	RMS total	2.011±0.644	2.021±0.514	0.33
	RMS HOA	0.874±0.623	0.901±0.519	0.29
	–1 Z₃	–0.043±0.039	–0.057±0.032	0.86
	1 Z₃	–0.158±0.151	–0.098±0.097	0.13
	–3 Z₃	0.054±0.032	0.071±0.035	0.65
	3 Z₃	–0.119±0.075	–0.105±0.089	0.14
	0 Z₄	0.107±0.074	0.112±0.091	0.57

^* RMS total=root mean square of total aberrations

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

TOOLS

Similar articles