Comparison of Clinical Long-Term Outcomes with Two Types of One-Piece Aspheric Intraocular Lenses after Cataract Surgery

Yong Seok Park; Yong Sok Ji; Kyung Chul Yoon

doi:10.3341/jkos.2016.57.2.221

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(2) > 1010499

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Ji, and Yoon: Comparison of Clinical Long-Term Outcomes with Two Types of One-Piece Aspheric Intraocular Lenses after Cataract Surgery

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(2):221-227.

Published online: 7 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.2.221

Comparison of Clinical Long-Term Outcomes with Two Types of One-Piece Aspheric Intraocular Lenses after Cataract Surgery

Yong Seok Park, MD, Yong Sok Ji, MD, PhD, Kyung Chul Yoon, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Kyung Chul Yoon, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Hospital, #42 Jebong-ro, Dong-gu, Gwangju 61469, Korea Tel: 82-62-220-6741, Fax: 82-62-227-1642 E-mail: kcyoon@jnu.ac.kr

Received 27 February 2015 Revised 28 July 2015 Accepted 14 November 2015

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 outcomes of glistening-free intraocular lens (IOL) and conventional 1-piece aspheric IOL in implanted in-the-bag.

Methods

After phacoemulsification performed by a single surgeon, 2 different IOLs were implanted: enVista MX60 (glistening-free 1-piece aspheric IOL) in 38 eyes (group A) and AcrySof IQ (conventional 1-piece aspheric IOL) in 46 eyes (group B). Glare symptom score (0-5) obtained by questionnaires, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT), posterior capsular opacity (PCO), glistening formation and spherical equivalent error were compared and analyzed preoperatively and 6 months and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

A statistically significant improvement of BCVA and contrast sensitivity postoperatively was observed in all groups. There was statistically significant increase of glistening in group B compared with group A. However, there was no significant difference of FACT scores of spatial frequency in A, B, C, D and E columns and glare symptom score (0-10) obtained by questionnaires 12 months after surgery. Spherical equivalent errors were -0.38 ± 0.27 D and -0.36 ± 0.28 D for groups A and B, respectively. PCO occurred in 2 eyes in group A and 4 eyes in group B.

Conclusions

EnVista MX60 IOL showed less glistening formation than AcrySof IQ IOL, however, there was no significant difference in terms of vision quality such as BCVA, FACT and glare symptom score at 12 months postoperatively.

Keywords: Functional acuity contrast test, Glistening, One-piece aspheric intraocular lenses

REFERENCES

1). Dhaliwal DK, Mamalis N, Olson RJ, et al. Visual significance of glistenings seen in the AcrySof intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:452–7.

2). Davison JA. Clinical performance of Alcon SA30AL and SA60AT single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1112–23.

3). Waite A, Faulkner N, Olson RJ. Glistenings in the single-piece, hydrophobic, acrylic intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 144:143–4.

4). Nishihara H, Kageyama T, Ohnishi T, et al. Glistenings in lathe-cut acrylic intraocular lens. Ganka Shujutsu. 2000; 13:227–30.

5). 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.

6). Ayaki M, Nishihara H, Yaguchi S, Koide R. Effect of ophthalmic solution components on acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:122–6.

7). 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.

8). Choi YJ, Han KE, Ahn JM, et al. Comparisons of clinical results after implantation of three aspheric intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:251–6.

9). Lee K, Yoon MH, Seo KY, et al. Comparisons of clinical results after implantation of three aspheric intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:1213–8.

10). Han J, Han KE, Ahn JM, et al. Influence of pupil size on visual acuity after implantation of the TECNIS 1-piece intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:1615–20.

11). Kwak AY, Choi M, Seo KY, Ahn JM. Comparison of optical quality between two intraocular lenses using double-pass based optical quality analysis system. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:1818–23.

12). Parede TR, Torricelli AA, Mukai A, et al. Quality of vision in refractive and cataract surgery, indirect measurers: review article. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013; 76:386–90.

13). Cheon MH, Lee JE, Kim JH, et al. One-year outcome of monocular implant of aspheric multifocal IOL. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:822–8.

14). Wejde G, Kugelberg M, Zetterström C. Posterior capsule opacification: comparison of 3 intraocular lenses of different materials and design. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1556–9.

15). Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekule R, Harp SA. Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots' performance in aircraft simulators. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982; 59:105–9.

16). 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; 88:11–6.

17). 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.

18). Bae HW, Kim EK, Kim TI. Spherical aberration, contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with three aspherical intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1639–44.

19). 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; 51:1584–9.

20). Miyata A, Yaguchi S. Equilibrium water content and glistenings in acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:1768–72.

21). Apple DJ, Mamalis N, Olson RJ, Kincaid MC. Intraocular Lenses: evolution, designs, complications, and pathology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins;1989. p. 11–41.

22). Saylor DM, Coleman Richardson D, Dair BJ, Pollack SK. Osmotic cavitation of elastomeric intraocular lenses. Acta Biomater. 2010; 6:1090–8.

23). Gregori NZ, Spencer TS, Mamalis N, Olson RJ. In vitro comparison of glistening formation among hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses(1). J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1262–8.

24). Packer M, Fry L, Lavery KT, et al. Safety and effectiveness of a glistening-free single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (enVista). Clin Ophthalmol. 2013; 7:1905–12.

25). Heiner P, Ligabue E, Fan A, Lam D. Safety and effectiveness of a single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (enVista[R]) - results of a European and Asian-Pacific study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8:629–35.

26). Leydolt C, Schriefl S, Stifter E, et al. Posterior capsule opacification with the iMics1 NY-60 and AcrySof SN60WF 1-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: 3-year results of a randomized trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156:375–81. e2.

27). Colin J, Orignac I, Touboul D. Glistenings in a large series of hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:2121–6.

28). Hayashi K, Hirata A, Yoshida M, et al. Long-term effect of surface light scattering and glistenings of intraocular lenses on visual function. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 154:240–51. e2.

29). Christiansen G, Durcan FJ, Olson RJ, Christiansen K. Glistenings in the AcrySof intraocular lens: pilot study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:728–33.

30). Gunenc U, Oner FH, Tongal S, Ferliel M. Effects on visual function of glistenings and folding marks in AcrySof intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1611–4.

31). Dogru M, Tetsumoto K, Tagami Y, et al. Optical and atomic force microscopy of an explanted AcrySof intraocular lens with glistenings. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:571–5.

Figure 1.

Visual acuity (VA) at baseline and postoperative 12 months. (A) Uncorrected VA at baseline and postoperative 12 months. (B) Corrected VA at baseline and postoperative 12 months. log MAR =logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution. ^* p<0.001 compared with baseline.

Figure 2.

Spherical equivalents and endothelial cell counts. (A) Spherical equivalents at postoperative 12 months in the enVista® MX60 and Acrysof® IQ SN60WF groups. (B) Endothelial cell counts at postoperative 12 months in the enVista® MX60 and Acrysof® IQ SN60WF groups.

Figure 3.

Night glare symptom scores and incidence of posterior capsular opacity. (A) Night glare symptom scores at postoperative 12 months in the enVista® MX60 and Acrysof®IQ SN60WF groups. (B) Incidence of posterior capsular opacity at postoperative 12 months in the enVista® MX60 and Acrysof®IQ SN60WF groups.

Figure 4.

Proportion of glistening grade at postoperative 12 months.

Figure 5.

Functional Acuity Contrast Test scores at baseline and postoperative 12 months. ‘A' means ‘spatial frequency = 1.5 cycles per degree', ‘B’ means ‘spatial frequency = 3 cycles per degree’, ‘C’ means ‘spatial frequency = 6 cycles per degree’, ‘D’ means ‘spatial frequency = 12 cycles per degree’, and ‘E’ means ‘spatial frequency = 18 cycles per degree’. ^* p<0.001 compared with baseline.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients who underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation

	Group A^* (n = 38)	Group B^† (n = 46)	p-value
Sex (male:female)	17:21	19:27	0.671
Age (years)	62.8 ± 12.9	62.3 ± 14.7	0.477
UDVA (log MAR)	0.70 ± 0.33	0.69 ± 0.32	0.805
CDVA (log MAR)	0.41 ± 0.31	0.46 ± 0.36	0.871
Manifest refraction (SE, D)	0.02 ± 5.54	−1.18 ± 3.66	0.173
Endothelial cell count (cells/mm²)	2,584.9 ± 387.4	2,623.4 ± 392.3	0.752
Functional acuity contrast test
Row A	13.1 ± 5.2	12.8 ± 5.3	0.760
Row B	17.7 ± 4.2	16.9 ± 4.1	0.509
Row C	20.7 ± 5.8	19.9 ± 6.0	0.497
Row D	12.5 ± 3.5	12.1 ± 3.6	0.564
Row E	5.2 ± 1.3	5.1 ± 1.2	0.782
Follow-up duration (months)	12.5 ± 0.8	12.7 ± 0.9	0.691

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

IOL = intraocular lens; UDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; log MAR = logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; SE = spherical equivalent.

^* enVista® MX60;

^† AcrySof® IQ SN60WF.

TOOLS

Similar articles