Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(8) > 1009449

TOOLS
Lee, Yoon, Seo, Kim, and Kim: Comparisons of Clinical Results after Implantation of Three Aspheric Intraocular Lenses
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(8):1213-1218.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1213

Comparisons of Clinical Results after Implantation of Three Aspheric Intraocular Lenses

Kahyun Lee, MD1, Myung Hun Yoon, MD2, Kyoung Yul Seo, MD, PhD1, Eung Kweon Kim, MD, PhD1, Tae-im Kim, MD, PhD1,

1Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Vision Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae-im Kim, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Severance Hospital #50 Yeonse-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541, E-mail: TIKIM@yuhs.ac

This study was presented as a narration at the 108th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmology Society 2012.

Received 15 December 201226 February 2013       Accepted 16 May 2013

Copyright © 2013 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 clinical 3 months postoperative results of three different 1-piece aspheric intraocular lenses (IOLs): AcrySof IQ SN60WF (Alcon Laboratories, INC, Fort Worth, TX), TECNIS 1-piece ZCB00 (AMO Inc., Santa Ana, CA) and the newly developed enVista MX60 (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY).

Methods

In a total of 62 eyes, 1 of the 3 1-piece aspheric IOLs, AcrySof IQ SN60WF, TECNIS 1-piece ZCB00 or enVista MX60 was implanted after cataract extraction. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and spherical equivalent were assessed 3 months postoperatively. Total spherical aberration, high order aberration, and mod-ulation transfer function were analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences of UCVA, BCVA, the accuracy of postoperative refractive power, and modu-lation transfer function among the 3 IOLs. Higher order aberrations of the entire eye and internal optics showed almost no significant differences.

Conclusions

The newly developed IOL, enVista MX60, showed equivalent clinical outcomes as both AcrySof IQ SN60WF and TECNIS 1-piece ZCB00.

Keywords: Aspheric intraocular lens, Spherical aberration

References

1. Brint SF, Ostrick DM, Bryan JE. Keratometric cylinder and visual performance following phacoemulsification and implantation with silicone small-incision or poly(methyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991; 17:32–6.
crossref
2. Levy JH, Pisacano AM, Chadwick K. Astigmatic changes after cataract surgery with 5.1 mm and 3.5 mm sutureless incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994; 20:630–3.
crossref
3. Menapace R, Radax U, Amon M, Papapanos P. No-stitch, small in-cision cataract surgery with flexible intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994; 20:534–42.
crossref
4. Oshika T, Yoshimura K, Miyata N. Postsurgical inflammation after phacoemulsification and extracapsular extraction with soft or con-ventional intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:356–61.
crossref
5. Apple DJ. Intraocular lenses: Evolution, Design, Complications, and Pathology. Boltimore: Willams & Wilkins;1989; 11–41.
6. Alcon Laboratory I AcrySof natural single-piece IOL product monograph. For Worth, TX. 2003.
7. Ursell PG, Spalton DJ, Pande MV. Anterior capsule stability in eyes with intraocular lenses made of poly(methyl methacrylate), silicone, and AcrySof. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:1532–8.
crossref
8. Nagata T, Minakata A, Watanabe I. Adhesiveness of AcrySof to a collagen film. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:367–70.
crossref
9. Gabriel MM, Ahearn DG, Chan KY, Patel AS. In vitro adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to four intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:124–9.
crossref
10. Christiansen G, Durcan FJ, Olson RJ, Christiansen K. Glistenings in the AcrySof intraocular lens: pilot study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:728–33.
crossref
11. Dogru M, Tetsumoto K, Tagami Y. . Optical and atomic force microscopy of an explanted AcrySof intraocular lens with glistenings. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:571–5.
crossref
12. Omar O, Pirayesh A, Mamalis N, Olson RJ. In vitro analysis of AcrySof intraocular lens glistenings in AcryPak and Wagon Wheel packaging. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:107–13.
crossref
13. Kato K, Nishida M, Yamane H. . Glistening formation in an AcrySof lens initiated by spinodal decomposition of the polymer network by temperature change. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1493–8.
14. Dhaliwal DK, Mamalis N, Olson RJ. . Visual significance of glistenings seen in the AcrySof intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:452–7.
crossref
15. Oshika T, Shiokawa Y, Amano S, Mitomo K. Influence of glistenings on the optical quality of acrylic foldable intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85:1034–7.
crossref
16. Caporossi A, Martone G, Casprini F, Rapisarda L. Prospective randomized study of clinical performance of 3 aspheric and 2 spherical intraocular lenses in 250 eyes. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:639–48.
crossref
17. Rocha KM, Soriano ES, Chalita MR. . Wavefront analysis and contrast sensitivity of aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a randomized prospective study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:750–6.
crossref
18. Tzelikis PF, Akaishi L, Trindade FC, Boteon JE. Spherical aberration and contrast sensitivity in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intraocular lenses: a comparative study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:827–33.
crossref
19. Ahn H, Kim SW, Kim EK, Kim TI. Wavefront and visual function analysis after aspherical and spherical intraocular lenses implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1248–55.
crossref
20. Kim HS, Kim SW, Ha BJ. . Ocular aberrations and contrast sensitivity in eyes implanted with aspheric and spherical intra-ocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1256–62.
crossref
21. Oshika T, Kawana K, Hiraoka T. . Ocular higher-order wave-front aberration caused by major tilting of intraocular lens. Am JOphthalmol. 2005; 140:744–6.
crossref
22. Marcos S, Barbero S, Jiménez-Alfaro I. Optical quality and depth-of-field of eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intra-ocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 21:223–35.
crossref

Figure 1.
Modulation transfer function (MTF) of 3 groups at 5-mm pupil zone. (A) Modulation transfer function (MTF) of total eye. * p-value = no statistical difference between 3 intraocular lens groups. (B) Modulation transfer function (MTF) of Internal optics. * p-value = no statistical difference between 3 intraocular lens groups.
jkos-54-1213f1.tif
Table 1.
Patient demographics
EnVista (n = 23) TECNIS ZCB00 (n = 14) Acrysof SN60WF (n = 19) p-value* p-value†
Right/Left of eyes 13/10 8/6 11/8 0.996
Male/Female 15/8 7/7 5/14 0.042
Mean age (years) 67.35 ± 8.89 63.57 ± 6.42 65.63 ± 9.95 0.229
Axial length (mm) 23.53 ± 0.71 23.41 ± 0.38 23.77 ± 1.32 0.642 0.531

Values are presented as meean ± SD.

* By ANOVA;

† By ANCOVA (covariates: patients’ age and sex).

Table 2.
Visual acuity and spherical equivalent at postoperative 3 months
EnVista (n = 23) TECNIS ZCB00 (n = 14) Acrysof SN60WF (n = 19) p-value* p-value†
UCVA (log MAR) 0.19 ± 0.11 0.22 ± 0.20 0.20 ± 0.26 0.088 0.187
BCVA (log MAR) 0.03 ± 0.07 0.05 ± 0.14 0.07 ± 0.14 0.510 0.645
SE -0.14 ± 0.33 -0.32 ± 0.38 -0.14 ± 0.36 0.302 0.346
Difference between goal diopter and SE‡ 0.03 ± 0.34 -0.46 ± 0.21 -0.43 ± 0.22 0.057 0.063

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity; BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; SE = spherical equivalent.

* By ANOVA;

† By ANCOVA (covariates: patients’ age and sex);

‡ Calculated as (spherical equivalent at postoperative 3 months – goal diopter).

Table 3.
Total ocular aberrations (μ m) of 3 groups measured by iTrace®
EnVista (n = 23) TECNIS ZCB00 (n = 14) Acrysof SN60WF (n = 19) p-value* p-value†
RMS total 3.80 ± 5.32 1.43 ± 0.94 1.54 ± 1.32 0.092 0.205
HOA 3.03 ± 4.23 0.94 ± 0.63 0.99 ± 0.93 0.053 0.137
Trefoil 6 (Z3-3) -0.60 ± 2.83 -0.25 ± 0.32 0.22 ± 0.59 0.359 0.729
Coma7 (Z3-1) 0.34 ± 2.30 0.21 ± 0.43 0.00 ± 0.69 0.771 0.885
Coma8 (Z31) 0.24 ± 0.68 -0.02 ± 0.20 0.06 ± 0.30 0.302 0.583
Trefoil9 (Z33) -0.05 ± 0.89 0.13 ± 0.30 -0.08 ± 0.41 0.545 0.741
SA (Z40) -0.17 ± 1.06 -0.19 ± 0.27 -0.06 ± 0.32 0.818 0.812

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

RMS = root mean square; HOA = high order aberration; SA = spherical aberration.

* By ANOVA;

† By ANCOVA (covariates: patients’ age and sex).

Table 4.
Corneal aberrations (μ m) of 3 groups measured by iTrace®
EnVista (n = 23) TECNIS ZCB00(n = 14) Acrysof SN60WF (n = 19) p-value* p-value†
RMS total 3.75 ± 5.24 1.32 ± 0.76 1.56 ± 1.47 0.089 0.179
HOA 2.97 ± 4.23 0.94 ± 0.63 1.17 ± 1.03 0.075 0.165
Trefoil 6 (Z3-3) -0.45 ± 2.81 -0.20 ± 0.31 0.30 ± 0.69 0.411 0.781
Coma7 (Z3-1) 0.30 ± 2.28 0.19 ± 0.39 0.09 ± 0.83 0.915 0.944
Coma8 (Z31) 0.30 ± 0.69 0.02 ± 0.22 0.09 ± 0.36 0.287 0.502
Trefoil9 (Z33) -0.10 ± 0.94 0.03 ± 0.25 -0.25 ± 0.44 0.417 0.425
SA (Z40) -0.28 ± 1.06 -0.33 ± 0.33 -0.20 ± 0.31 0.841 0.857

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

RMS = root mean square; HOA = high order aberration; SA = spherical aberration.

* By ANOVA;

† By ANCOVA (covariates: patients’ age and sex).

Table 5.
Internal aberrations (μ m) of 3 groups measured by iTrace®
EnVista (n = 23) TECNIS ZCB00 (n = 14) Acrysof SN60WF (n = 19) ) p-value* p-value†
RMS total 0.55 ± 0.31 0.59 ± 0.20 0.75 ± 0.40 0.219 0.147
HOA 0.33 ± 0.19 0.29 ± 0.12 0.42 ± 0.15 0.073 0.053
Trefoil 6 (Z3-3) -0.15 ± 0.14 -0.05 ± 0.12 -0.08 ± 0.20 0.319 0.659
Coma7 (Z3-1) 0.04 ± 0.10 0.02 ± 0.11 -0.02 ± 0.19 0.499 0.923
Coma8 (Z31) 0.00 ± 0.13 -0.04 ± 0.10 -0.02 ± 0.13 0.727 0.626
Trefoil9 (Z33) 0.04 ± 0.17 0.10 ± 0.12 0.12 ± 0.15 0.451 0.111
SA (Z40) 0.11 ± 0.09 0.15 ± 0.08 0.14 ± 0.06 0.556 0.352

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

RMS = root mean square; HOA = high order aberration; SA = spherical aberration.

* By ANOVA;

† By ANCOVA (covariates: patients’ age and sex).

TOOLS
Similar articles