Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.53(6) > 1009372

TOOLS
Um, Lee, Kim, Kim, Tchach, and Kim: Comparison of Six-Month Outcomes in Eyes with Two Hydrophilic Aspheric Intraocular Lenses after Cataract Surgery
Original Article
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2012; 53(6): 767-774.

Published online: 16 June 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2012.53.6.767

Comparison of Six-Month Outcomes in Eyes with Two Hydrophilic Aspheric Intraocular Lenses after Cataract Surgery

Taewoong Um, MD, Joo Eun Lee, MD, Jae Hyung Kim, MD, Myoung Joon Kim, MD, Hungwon Tchach, MD, Jae Yong Kim, MD, PhD

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

Address reprint requests to Jae Yong Kim, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, #88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea. Tel: 82-2-3010-3680, Fax: 82-2-470-6440, jykim2311@gmail.com

Received 29 April 2011       Accepted 18 April 2012

Copyright © 2012 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the six-month clinical outcomes of Tek-Lens II model 872 (Tekia, Inc.) and Akreos MI-60 (Bausch & Lomb, Inc.) hydrophilic aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted in-the-bag.

Methods

After phacoemulsification was performed by a single surgeon (JY Kim), two different hydrophilic aspheric IOLs were implanted: the Tek-Lens II IOL in 57 eyes and the MI60 IOL in 49 eyes. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error (RE), total high-order aberration (HOA), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and contrast sensitivity (CS) were measured preoperatively and one, three, and six months postoperatively. All parameters were analyzed using the independent t-test to compare the two IOL groups.

Results

There was no significant difference in the BCVA, RE, or HOA between the two groups at any of the follow-up visits. Three months postoperatively, the ACD of the TEK-Lens II group as measured by corneal topography was significantly shallower than that of the MI60 group (3.67 ± 0.52 mm vs. 4.10 ± 0.40 mm; p = 0.008), and most of the photopic CS in the Tek-Lens II group was significantly higher than that in the MI60 group (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The Tek-Lens II IOL showed comparable clinical outcomes with a proven hydrophilic aspheric IOL for the postoperative six months.

Keywords: Aspheric intraocular lens, Hydrophilic intraocular lens, Tek-Lens II model 872™

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Comparison of postoperative contrast sensitivity (CS) in photophic and mesopic conditions. (A, C, E) CS in photopic condition at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months respectively. (B, D, F) CS in mesopic condition at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months respectively (*p < 0.05).
jkos-53-767-g001
Figure 2
Comparison of surgery-induced astigmatism (SIA) between two groups.
jkos-53-767-g002
Figure 3
Photographs of two IOLs. (A) Tek-Lens II model 872™, (B) Akreos MI60™.
jkos-53-767-g003
Table 1
Comparison of preoperative characteristics between two groups
jkos-53-767-i001

Values are presented as mean ± SD or number.

BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; AL = axial length; IOL = intraocular lens.

Table 2
Comparison of postoperative outcomes by 6 months after cataract surgeries in which the Tek-Lens II model 872™ or Akreos MI60™ IOL was implanted
jkos-53-767-i002

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; SE = spherical equivalent; RE = refractive error; HOR = high order aberration; SA = spherical aberration; VC = vertical coma; HC = horizontal coma; ACD = anterior chamber depth; SIA = surgery-induced astigmatism.

Table 3
Characteristics of the two IOLs in this study
jkos-53-767-i003

IOL = intraocular lens.

References

1. Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekule R, Harp SA. Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots' performance in aircraft simulators. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982. 59:105–109.
2. Pesudovs K, Hazel CA, Doran RM, Elliott DB. The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004. 88:11–16.
3. Applegate RA, Hilmantel G, Howland HC, et al. Corneal first surface optical aberrations and visual performance. J Refract Surg. 2000. 16:507–514.
4. Bhattacharjee H, Bhattacharjee K, Medhi J. Visual performance: Comparison of foldable intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:451–455.
5. Mierdel P, Kaemmerer M, Mrochen M, et al. Ocular optical aberrometer for clinical use. J Biomed Opt. 2001. 6:200–204.
6. Holladay JT, Piers PA, Koranyi G, et al. A new intraocular lens design to reduce spherical aberration of pseudophakic eyes. J Refract Surg. 2002. 18:683–691.
7. Son SW, Seo JW, Shin SJ, Chung SK. Comparison of the stability between three-piece and single-piece aspheric intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:1584–1589.
8. Jeong JH, Kim MK, Wee WR, Lee JH. Comparison of optical performances in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses after cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:1445–1452.
9. Mun GH, Im SK, Park HY, Yoon KC. Comparison of clinical results between two spherical aberraion-free intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:670–676.
10. Bae HW, Kim EK, Kim TI. Spherical aberration, contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with three aspherical intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009. 50:1639–1644.
11. Botelho PJ, Johnson LN, Arnold AC. The effect of aspirin on the visual outcome of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996. 121:450–451.
12. Artal P, Berrio E, Guirao A, Piers P. Contribution of the cornea and internal surfaces to the change of ocular aberrations with age. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2002. 19:137–143.
13. Chalita MR, Chavala S, Xu M, Krueger RR. Wavefront analysis in post-LASIK eyes and its correlation with visual symptoms, refraction, and topography. Ophthalmology. 2004. 111:447–453.
14. Rawer R, Stork W, Spraul CW, Lingenfelder C. Imaging quality of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:1618–1631.
15. Bach M, Wesemann W, Kolling G, et al. [Photopic contrast sensitivity. Local contrast perception]. Ophthalmologe. 2008. 105:46–48.
16. Kaufman PL, Alm A, Adler FH. Adler's Physiology of the Eye : Clinical Application. 2003. 10th ed. St. Louis: Mosby.
17. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS. Contrast sensitivity and measuring cataract outcomes. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006. 19:521–533.
18. Shandiz JH, Derakhshan A, Daneshyar A, et al. Effect of cataract type and severity on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2011. 6:26–31.
19. Hayashi K, Hayashi H. Comparison of the stability of 1-piece and 3-piece acrylic intraocular lenses in the lens capsule. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:337–342.
20. Wirtitsch MG, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Effect of haptic design on change in axial lens position after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:45–51.
21. Shin CJ, Lee JE, Lee JH, et al. Clinical outcomes after microincision cataract surgery and in-the-bag implantation of a new intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010. 51:677–683.
22. Alió J, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M. Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology. 2005. 112:1997–2003.
TOOLS
Similar articles