Aim. To evaluate clinical and functional results of implantation of a new hydrophobic acrylic monofocal IOL in a preloaded injector. Methods. The prospective study included 60 patients (66 eyes) after Hoya iSert® 250/251 IOL implantation (31 patients, 35 eyes, group 1) and a new Hoya Vivinex Multisert® XY1-SP IOL (29 patients, 31 eyes, group 2). IOL viscoimplantation was performed in 100 % of cases in group 1; in group 2 viscoimplantation was done in 45.1 % of cases and hydroimplantation in 54.9 %. Intraoperatively, corneal incision size was measured with a ruler before and after IOL implantation. Results In both groups, there was a statistically significant (p<0.05) increase of UCDVA from 0.28±0.09 in the preoperative period to 0.7±0.17 3 months after surgery in group 1 and from 0.24±0.10 in the preoperative period to 0.84±0.18 3 months after surgery in group 2. Slightly lower values of UCDVA in group 1 may be associated with a higher level of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) in this group. Similar dynamics was shown for BCDVA (from 0.52±0.21 before surgery to 0.95±0.19 after 3 months of follow-up in group 1 and from 0.55±0.20 before surgery to 0.98±0.21 after 3 months of follow-up in group 2). No difference was found between the studied groups. After IOL implantation, there was an increase in incision size to 2.4±0.12 mm in group 1 and 2.1±0.08 mm in group 2 (p=0.04). Mean SIA after 3 months of observation was 1.1±0.16 D in group 1 and 0.48±0.07 D in group 2 (p=0.0007). Conclusion. This study presents a comparative analysis of implantation results with monofocal hydrophobic acrylic Hoya Vivinex IOL in a Multisert® preloaded injector and monofocal Hoya 250/251 IOLs in an Isert® injector. The advantage of the new IOL implantation in reducing the incidence of surgically induced astigmatism was shown.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Першин et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: