Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Results after Implantation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens

Min Kyu Yang; Young Keun Han; Ji Won Kwon; Won Ryang Wee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2015.56.1.33

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.56(1) > 1010208

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yang, Han, Kwon, and Wee: Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Results after Implantation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(1):33-38.

Published online: 6 September 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.1.33

Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Results after Implantation of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens

Min Kyu Yang, MD¹, Young Keun Han, MD, PhD^1,^2,, Ji Won Kwon, MD, PhD³, Won Ryang Wee, MD, PhD¹

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Ophthalmology, Myongji Hospital, Kwandong University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea

Address reprint requests to Young Keun Han, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul Metropolitan Government- Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, #20 Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 156-707, Korea, Tel: 82-2-870-2411, Fax: 82-2-831-0714 E-mail: eye129@hanmail.net

Received 23 November 20135 March 2014 Accepted 20 December 2014

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 noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To assess long-term clinical outcomes and factors influencing refractive change after implantation of hydrophilic (Akreos AO) and hydrophobic (Acrysof IQ) acrylic intraocular lens.

Methods

After phacoemulsification, intraocular lens was inserted in the bag (Akreos AO for 84 eyes and Acrysof IQ for 19 eyes). Uncorrected visual acuities (UCVA), refraction in both spherical equivalent (SE) and astigmatism were compared longitudinally in more than 2 years follow-up. Factors associated with SE change ≥0.5 diopter (D) after Akreos AO implantation were analyzed with logistic regression.

Results

Although Akreos AO showed hyperopic change mainly within 6 months, UCVA and astigmatism change were not stat-istically significant during follow up (+0.15 ± 0.43 D, p = 0.027). UCVA, SE, astigmatism were not changed after Acrysof IQ implantation and not significantly different between two groups during follow up. Preoperative anterior chamber depth was a sole factor associated with SE change ≥0.5 D after Akreos AO implantation (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Possible hyperopic shift after Akreos AO implantation should be considered in setting target diopter, especially in eye with shallow anterior chamber.

Keywords: Anterior chamber depth, Hydrophilic acrylic, Hyperopia, Intraocular lens

References

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

2. Dosso AA, Cottet L, Burgener ND, Di Nardo S. Outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery versus conventional coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:284–8.

3. Gimbel HV, Neuhann T. Development, advantages, and methods of the continuous circular capsulorhexis technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:31–7.

4. Bellucci R, Scialdone A, Buratto L. . Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity comparison between Tecnis and AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lenses: A multicenter randomized study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:712–7.

5. Kasper T, Bühren J, Kohnen T. Visual performance of aspherical and spherical intraocular lenses: intraindividual comparison of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:2022–9.

6. Marcos S, Barbero S, Jiménez-Alfaro I. Optical quality and depth- of-field of eyes implanted with spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2005; 21:223–35.

7. Buehl W, Findl O. Effect of intraocular lens design on posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:1976–85.

8. Nishi O, Yamamoto N, Nishi K, Nishi Y. Contact inhibition of migrating lens epithelial cells at the capsular bend created by a sharp- edged intraocular lens after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1065–70.

9. Yamada K, Nagamoto T, Yozawa H. . Effect of intraocular lens design on posterior capsule opacification after continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995; 21:697–700.

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

11. Dietze HH, Cox MJ. Limitations of correcting spherical aberration with aspheric intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg. 2005; 21:S541–6.

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

13. Johansson B, Sundelin S, Wikberg-Matsson A. . 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.

14. Madrid-Costa D, Pérez-Vives C, Ruiz-Alcocer J. . Visual simulation through different intraocular lenses in patients with previous myopic corneal ablation using adaptive optics: effect of tilt and decentration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012; 38:774–86.

15. Ji YS, Lee KH, Park YG, Yoon KC. Clinical results of implantation of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1065–71.

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

17. Lee KM, Park SH, Joo CK. Comparison of clinical outcomes with three different aspheric intraocular lenses. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011; 89:40–6.

18. Crnej A, Hirnschall N, Nishi Y. . Impact of intraocular lens haptic design and orientation on decentration and tilt. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:1768–74.

19. Kwartz J, Edwards K. Evaluation of the long-term rotational stability of single-piece, acrylic intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94:1003–6.

20. Mutlu FM, Erdurman C, Sobaci G, Bayraktar MZ. Comparison of tilt and decentration of 1-piece and 3-piece hydrophobic acrylic in-traocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:343–7.

21. Erickson P. Effects of intraocular lens position errors on post-operative refractive error. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:305–11.

22. Seong M, Kim MJ, Choi CY, Tchah H. Clinical results of single- piece hydrophilic IOL after cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1394–400.

23. Qatarneh D, Hau S, Tuft S. Hyperopic shift from posterior migration of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens optic. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:161–3.

24. Sanders DR, Higginbotham RW, Opatowsky IE, Confino J. Hyperopic shift in refraction associated with implantation of the single-piece Collamer intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:2110–2.

25. Müllner-Eidenböck A, Amon M, Schauersberger J. . Cellular reaction on the anterior surface of 4 types of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:734–40.

26. Schauersberger J, Amon M, Kruger A. . Lens epithelial cell outgrowth on 3 types of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:850–4.

27. Tsinopoulos IT, Tsaousis KT, Kymionis GD. . Comparison of anterior capsule contraction between hydrophobic and hydrophilic intraocular lens models. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010; 248:1155–8.

28. Abela-Formanek C, Amon M, Kahraman G. . Biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intra-ocular lenses in eyes with uveitis having cataract surgery: Long-term follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:104–12.

29. Abela-Formanek C, Amon M, Schild G. . Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:50–61.

30. Richter-Mueksch S, Kahraman G, Amon M. . Uveal and capsular biocompatibility after implantation of sharpedged hydro-philic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:1414–8.

31. Tognetto D, Toto L, Ballone E, Ravalico G. Biocompatibility of hydrophilic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:644–51.

32. Landers J, Liu H. Choice of intraocular lens may not affect refractive stability following cataract surgery. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2005; 33:34–40.

Figure 1.

Preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, spherical equivalent and astigmatism after implantation of Akreos AO. UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity.

Table 1.

Comparison of Akreos AO and Acrysof IQ

	Akreos AO	Acrysof IQ
Structure	One piece, 4 haptics	One piece, 2 haptics
	Anterior & posterior aspheric surfac	e Posterior aspheric surface
	Asymmetric biconvex
Material	Hydrophilic acryl	Hydrophobic acryl
Color	Clear	Yellow
Refractive index (n)	1.43	1.55
Spherical aberration (diopt	ter) 0.0	-0.17

Table 2.

Clinical characteristics of study groups

	Akreos AO (n = 84)	Acrysof IQ (n = 19)	p-value
Sex (M:F)	29:55	7:12	1.000^∗
Age (years)	70.83 ± 7.33	67.74 ± 6.94	0.187^†
Preoperative refraction (D)
Spherical equivalent	-0.72 ± 3.50	+0.64 ± 1.55	0.126^†
Astigmatism	1.10 ± 0.79	1.05 ± 0.67	0.689^†
Preoperative corneal power (D)	44.31 ± 1.39	44.80 ± 1.67	0.121^†
Preoperative axial length (mm)	23.40 ± 1.04	23.16 ± 0.92	0.377^†
Preoperative ACD (mm)	3.04 ± 0.33	3.02 ± 0.45	0.816^†
Diopter of IOL (D)	20.34 ± 2.91	21.21 ± 2.09	0.346^†
Target refraction (D)	-0.25 ± 0.15	-0.21 ± 0.37	0.952^†
Follow up period (years)	2.66 ± 0.44	2.70 ± 0.29	0.521^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. D = diopter; ACD = anterior chamber depth; IOL = intraocular lens.

^∗ Chi square test

^† Mann-Whitney test.

Table 3.

Multivariate linear regression test for the association between study factors and the magnitude of spherical equivalent shift at 6 months and more than 2 years after implantation of Akreos AO

Factors	1 month-2 years			1-6 months
Factors	≥0.5 D	<0.5 D	p-value	p-value
Age (years)	73.51 ± 7.25	69.69 ± 7.18	0.152	0.200
Preoperative refraction (D)
Spherical equivalent	-0.67 ± 4.58	-0.74 ± 3.01	0.140	0.154
Astigmatism	-1.23 ± 0.83	-1.04 ± 0.78	0.239	0.552
Preoperative corneal power (D)	44.29 ± 1.58	44.32 ± 1.34	0.905	0.777
Preoperative axial length (mm)	23.20 ± 1.40	23.49 ± 0.85	0.566	0.389
Preoperative ACD (mm)	2.90 ± 0.29	3.10 ± 0.33	0.008^∗	0.006^∗
Target refraction (D)	-0.29 ± 0.14	-0.23 ± 0.15	0.098	0.433
Follow up period (years)	2.70 ± 0.45	2.64 ± 0.44	0.536	-

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

D = diopter; ACD = anterior chamber depth.

^∗ p < 0.05.

TOOLS

Similar articles