Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare the incidence and intensity of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) between 2 similar 1-piece foldable hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) over 3 years. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. DESIGN: Randomized prospective patient- and examiner-masked clinical trial with intraindividual comparison. METHODS: Patients with bilateral age-related cataract had cataract surgery and implantation of a Tecnis ZCB00 continuous-optic-edge IOL in 1 eye and an Acrysof SA60AT interrupted-optic-edge IOL in the other eye. Postoperative examinations were performed at 6 months and 3 years. Digital retroillumination images were taken of each eye. The amount of PCO (score 0 to 10) was assessed subjectively at the slitlamp and objectively using automated image-analysis software. RESULTS: The study comprised 54 patients (108 eyes). The mean objective PCO score was 1.3 ± 1.7 (SD) for the continuous-optic-edge IOLs and 0.9 ± 1.3 for the interrupted-optic-edge IOLs (P=.10). Three years postoperatively, a neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) capsulotomy was performed in 26.1% of eyes with the continuous-optic-edge IOL and 21.7% with the interrupted-optic-edge IOL (P=.56). There was no significant difference in corrected distance visual acuity, capsulorhexis–IOL overlap, capsule folds, or anterior capsule opacification 3 years after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both IOLs had comparable PCO and Nd:YAG rates 3 years postoperatively. The optimized barrier function of the continuous-optic-edge IOL and the material properties of the interrupted-optic-edge IOL seemingly outbalanced the effect on lens epithelial cell migration and proliferation beneath the optic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leydolt et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: