The clinical results of hydrophilic acrylic lens.
- Author:
Jaeyong KIM
1
;
Hungwon TCHAH
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hydrophilic acrylic lens;
Phacoemulsification;
Refractive error;
Lens epithelial cell proliferation
- MeSH:
Capsulorhexis;
Epithelial Cells;
Humans;
Medical Records;
Phacoemulsification;
Prognosis;
Refractive Errors;
Retrospective Studies;
Visual Acuity
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2001;42(11):1562-1570
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To study visual prognosis and postoperative refractive status and complications after in the bag implantation of newly-introduced hydrophilic acrylic lens (ACR6D, CORNEAL(R) Co. France). METHODS: This study was a retrospective medical record review that in experimental group (50 eyes) we implanted CORNEAL(R)lens in the bag and in control group (50 eyes) we did Acrysof(R) lens after phacoemulsification by one surgeon. We checked automated refraction or manifest refraction of all patients and defined refractive error was a subtraction of preoperative desired refraction from postoperative spherical equivalent. RESULTS: In experimental group, best corrected visual acuity (log MAR) was 0.11+/-0.13 at 2 months after surgery and 0.13+/-0.11 at 6 months. In control group, that was 0.14+/-0.17 at 2 months after surgery and 0.21+/-0.30 at 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In experimental group, refractive error was -0.56+/-0.73 diopter (D) at 2 months after surgery and -0.41+/-0.90 D at 6 months. In control group, that was 0.14+/-0.80 D at 2 months after surgery and 0.24+/-0.67 D at 6 months. There was a statistically significant difference of refractive error between the two groups at 2 months and 6 month after surgery (p=0, p=0.03). In experimental group, the rate of postoperative lens epithelial cell proliferation contiguous to continuous circular capsulorhexis was higher than those in control group (p=0). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference of postoperative visual acuity between CORNEAL(R) and Acrysof(R) lens implanted in the bag after phacoemulsification. But mean refractive error in eyes implanted with CORNEAL(R) lens was -0.56 D at 2 month after surgery, -0.41 D at 6 month and we recommended preoperative desired refraction of CORNEAL(R) lens should be more hyperopic and postoperative lens epithelial cell proliferation be checked carefully.
