Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.60(12) > 1139580

TOOLS
Lee, Cho, Lim, and Cho: Clinical Outcomes of Intraocular Lenses Produced in the Republic of Korea
Original Article

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2019; 60(12): 1185-1190.

Published online: 17 December 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2019.60.12.1185

Clinical Outcomes of Intraocular Lenses Produced in the Republic of Korea

Jung Hwa Lee, MD1, Young Joo Cho, MD1, Tae Hyung Lim, MD, PhD1, 2, Beom Jin Cho, MD, PhD1, 2

1HanGil Eye Hospital, Incheon, Korea.

2Department of Ophthalmology, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Beom Jin Cho, MD, PhD. HanGil Eye Hospital, #35 Bupyeong-daero, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon 21388, Korea. Tel: 82-32-503-3322, Fax: 82-32-504-3322, chobjn@empas.com

Received 25 April 2019       Revised 17 May 2019       Accepted 6 December 2019

©2019 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

The Korean Ophthalmological Society

(open-access):

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 evaluate the clinical outcomes of aspheric hydrophilic acrylic EYELIKE® (Koryo Eyetech Co., Seoul, Korea) intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 176 consecutive eyes of 160 patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of aspheric EYELIKE® IOLs. The following preoperative measurements were collected: slit-lamp examination, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), automatic and manual keratometry, fundus examination, corneal topography, and specular microscopy. The UCDVA, CDVA, IOP, refraction, and slit-lamp examination were evaluated postoperatively at 1 week and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Specular microscopy was also postoperatively conducted at 1 month.

Results

At the 6-month postoperative visit, the mean UCDVA was 0.15 ± 0.23, and the mean CDVA was 0.03 ± 0.07 logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR). No statistically significant differences were observed among the four groups (postoperative 1 week, postoperative 1 month, postoperative 3 months, and postoperative 6 months) in the manifest spherical equivalent. In total, 74% of IOL Master700 and 54% of A-scan measurements were within ± 0.5 diopters (D) difference from the target refraction, and 95% and 77%, respectively, were within ± 1.0 D from the target refraction. With regard to complications, one case of CME and posterior capsule opacification with decreased visual acuity was detected at month 3 postoperatively; in this case, the CDVA recovered to 0 logMAR with conventional treatment and yttrium aluminium garnetlaser posterior capsulotomy after postoperative 6 months.

Conclusions

Domestically produced EYELIKE® IOLs had high refraction predictability and stability.

Keywords: Cataract, EYELIKE®, Phakic intraocular lenses

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

EYELIKE® (Koryo Eyetech Co., Seoul, Korea) aspheric intraocular lens. This is a hydrophilic acrylic one-piece intraocular lens (the manufacturer approved the use of the photograph of their product officially).

jkos-60-1185-g001
Figure 2

Predictability. Pearson correlation of targeted refractive error and postoperative spherical equivalent. (A) IOL Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA). (B) A-SCAN (Sonomed Escalon, New Hyde Park, NY, USA). IOL = intraocular lens.

jkos-60-1185-g002
Figure 3

Predictability. Histogram of postoperative refractive error for A-scan and IOL Master 700 respectively. IOL = intraocular lens; D = diopters.

jkos-60-1185-g003
Figure 4

Pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (spectral domain-optical coherence tomography). Postoperative 3 months later 1 month after posterior subtenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide. (A) Postoperative 3 months later. (B) One month after posterior subtenon injection of triamcinolone acetonide.

jkos-60-1185-g004
Table 1

Preoperative patient demographics

jkos-60-1185-i001

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (range).

UCDVA = uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution; D = diopters; S.E. = spherical equivalent; K2-K1 = corneal cylinder.

Table 2

The postoperative refractive error (mean spherical equivalent differences) between the target refraction and the actual refraction, UCDVA and CDVA at each period

jkos-60-1185-i002

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

UCDVA= uncorrected distance visual acuity; CDVA= corrected distance visual acuity; Postop = postoperative; Preop = preoperative data; S.E= spherical equivalent; D= diopters; logMAR = logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution.

*Paired t-test.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Kwon HL, Park HR, Koo BS, Kim TI. Higher-order aberrations in pseudophakia with different intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:954–960.
2. Suh Y, Oh C, Kim HM. Comparison of the long-term clinical results of hydrophilic and hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2005; 19:29–33.
3. Byeun SH, Kim WS. Comparision of the three different hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1561–1567.
4. Kim HJ, Seo JW, Shin SJ, Chung SK. Visual outcome and stability of hydrogel full-optics accommodative intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:1448–1454.
5. Yoo TK, Choi MJ, Lee HK, et al. Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using IOL Master 700, IOL Master 500, and ultrasound. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2017; 58:523–529.
6. Petternel V, Menapace R, Findl O, et al. Effect of optic edge design and haptic angulation on postoperative intraocular lens position change. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:52–57.
7. 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.
8. Hwang S, Lim DH, Hyun J, et al. Myopic shift after implantation of a novel diffractive trifocal intraocular lens in Korean eyes. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2018; 32:16–22.
9. Lee JM, Oh TH, Kim HS. The changes in anterior chamber depth and refractive error associated with diverse intraocular lenses. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:245–250.
10. Raj SM, Vasavada AR, Johar SR, et al. Post-operative capsular opacification: a review. Int J Biomed Sci. 2007; 3:237–250.
11. Vasavada AR, Raj SM, Shah GD, Nanavaty MA. Posterior capsule opacification after lens implantation: incidence, risk factors and management. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2013; 8:141–149.
12. Ursell PG, Dhariwal M, Majirska K, et al. Three-year incidence of Nd:YAG capsulotomy and posterior capsule opacification and its relationship to monofocal acrylic IOL biomaterial: a UK real world evidence study. Eye (Lond). 2018; 32:1579–1589.
13. Drolsum L, Haaskjold E. Causes of decreased visual acuity after cataract extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995; 21:59–63.
14. Lee SS, Kim HJ. Clinical results of Acrysof IOLs and Acryl-C160 IOLs in complicated cataracts. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:35–41.
15. Choi J, Kim TI, Tchah HW. Aberration change in pseudophakia with three types of acryl intraocular lens. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:405–412.
16. Phogat J, Rathi M, Verma R, et al. Calcification of hydrophilic intraocular lenses: laboratory analysis and surgical technique for intraocular lens exchange. JCRS Case Reports. 2017; 5:64–66.
17. Taravati P, Lam DL, Leveque T, Van Gelder RN. Postcataract surgical inflammation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012; 23:12–18.
18. Choi KH, Lim SJ, Kim HB. Postsurgical inflammation measured with laser flare meter after silicon or PMMA intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:459–464.
TOOLS
Similar articles