Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Different IOL Sizes after Microincisional Cataract Surgery

Kyoung Sub Lee; Jae Hyung Kim; Jooeun Lee; Jae Yong Kim; Myoung Joon Kim; Hungwon Tchah

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.11.1281

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(11) > 1008919

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Kim, Lee, Kim, Kim, and Tchah: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Different IOL Sizes after Microincisional Cataract Surgery

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(11):1281-1285.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.11.1281

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Different IOL Sizes after Microincisional Cataract Surgery

Kyoung Sub Lee, MD, Jae Hyung Kim, MD, Jooeun Lee, MD, Jae Yong Kim, MD, Myoung Joon Kim, MD, Hungwon Tchah, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan of University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Hungwon Tchah, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center #388-1 Pungnap 2-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea Tel: 82-2-3010-3680, Fax: 82-2-470-6440, E-mail: hwtchah@amc.seoul.kr

Received 24 January 2011 Revised 22 April 2011 Accepted 22 September 2011

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 clinical outcomes between different IOL sizes after microincisional cataract surgery.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was done in 68 eyes of 68 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation with two different-sized aspheric IOLs (AKREOS MI60 Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Rochester, NY). The patients were divided into 2 groups: group I consisted of 38 eyes between 15.5-22.0 diopter (D) (optic size 6.0 mm, overall size 10.7 mm), and group II consisted of 30 eyes between 22.5–30.0 D (optic size 5.6 mm, overall size 10.5 mm). The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error, and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were measured preoperatively and post-operatively and were compared between groups.

Results

Postoperative 6 month BCVA was 0.08 ± 0.10 D in group I and 0.07 ± 0.11 D in group II. During the same period, the spherical equivalent was −0.32 ± 0.65 D in group I and −0.16 ± 0.59 D in group II (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in ACD or refractive error during the postoperative period (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Comparison of postoperative visual acuity and spherical equivalent between different sizes of Akreos MI-60™ IOLs showed no differences.

Keywords: Akreos MI60, Aspheric intraocular lens, Microincision cataract surgery

References

1. Kershner RM. Topical anesthsia for small incision self sealing cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19(Suppl):290–2.

2. Siepser SB. Sutureless cataract surgery with radial transverse incision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991; 17(Suppl):716–8.

3. 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.

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

5. Dogru M, Honda R, Omoto M, et al. Early visual results with the rollable ThinOptX intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:558–65.

6. Pandey SK, Werner L, Agarwal A, et al. Phakonit. cataract removal through a sub-1.0 mm incision and implantation of the ThinOptX rollable intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1710–3.

7. Alio J, Rodriguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M. Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:1997–2003.

8. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS. Aspheric intraocular lens selection: the evolution of refractive cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19:1–4.

9. Kohnen T, Klaproth OK. [Aspheric intraocular lenses]. Ophthalmologe. 2008; 105:234–40.

10. Can I, Takmaz T, Bayhan HA, Bostanci Ceran B. Aspheric microincision intraocular lens implantation with biaxial microincision cataract surgery: efficacy and reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:1905–11.

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

12. Mun GH, Im SK, Park HY, Yoon KC. Comparison of clinical results between two spherical aberraion-free intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:670–6.

13. Lee SY, Chung JL, Hong JP, el al. Comparative study of two aspheric, aberration-free intraocular lenses in cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1520–6.

14. Mun GH, Im SK, Park HY, Yoon KC. Comparison of visual function between two aspheric intraocular lenses after microcoaxial cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:333–9.

15. Oshika T, Nagata T, Ishii Y. Adhesion of lens capsule to intraocular lenses of polymethylmethacrylate, silicone, and acrylic foldable materials: an experimental study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998; 82:549–53.

16. Chang DF. Comparative rotational stability of single-piece open-loop acrylic and plate-haptic silicone toric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:1842–7.

17. Kim JH, Lee D, Cha YD, et al. The analysis of predicted capsular bag diameter using modified model of capsule measuring ring in Asians. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2008; 36:238–44.

18. Lim SJ, Kang SJ, Kim HB, Apple DJ. Ideal size of an intraocular lens for capsular bag fixation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:397–402.

19. Tana P, Belmonte J. Experimental study of different intraocular lens designs implanted in the bag after capsulorhexis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:1211–21.

20. Tehrani M, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, et al. Capsule measuring ring to predict capsular bag diameter and follow its course after foldable intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:2127–34.

Figure 1.

The size and shape of the IOL.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the IOL

Overall diameter (mm)	Optic body diameter (mm)	Diopter range (dpt)
11.0	6.2	10.0 to 15.0
10.7	6.0	15.5 to 22.0
10.5	5.6	22.5 to 30.0

Table 2.

Characteristics of the different-sized IOL groups

Characteristic	Group I	Group II
Eyes (n)	38	30
Age (yr)	69 ± 8.8	68 ± 10.0
Sex (male:female)	20:18	13:17
Preoperative refraction (D)	−0.14 ± 1.52	−0.02 ± 1.78
Axial length (mm)	23.69 ± 0.80	22.96 ± 0.80
Spherical IOL power (D)	19.9 ± 1.51	23.1 ± 0.63
ACD (mm)	2.72 ± 0.31	2.23 ± 0.45

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 3.

Postoperative best corrected visual acuity and refractive error according to different-sized IOL groups

		Group I	Group II	p-value
BCVA^*	1 month (log MAR)	0.11 ± 0.11	0.10 ± 0.09	0.719
	3 months (log MAR)	0.09 ± 0.10	0.09 ± 0.11	0.900
	6 months (log MAR)	0.08 ± 0.10	0.07 ± 0.11	0.562
Refractive error	1 month (Diopter)	−0.34 ± 0.67	−0.31 ± 0.56	0.829
	3 months (Diopter)	−0.34 ± 0.66	−0.19 ± 0.60	0.334
	6 months (Diopter)	−0.32 ± 0.65	−0.16 ± 0.59	0.317

Data are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Best corrected visual acuity, Student T test.

Table 4.

Postoperative change of anterior chamber depth and refractive error

		Group I	Group II
Anterior chamber depth	1 month (mm)	3.94 ± 0.27	3.78 ± 0.32
	3 months (mm)	3.95 ± 0.26	3.87 ± 0.28
	6 months (mm)	3.95 ± 0.24	3.95 ± 0.24
		p = 0.856	p = 0.178
Refractive error	1 month (D)	−0.34 ± 0.67	−0.31 ± 0.56
	3 months (D)	−0.34 ± 0.66	−0.19 ± 0.60
	6 months (D)	−0.32 ± 0.65	−0.16 ± 0.59
		p = 0.537	p = 0.122

Data are presented as mean ± SD. Repeated measures ANOVA.

TOOLS

Similar articles