• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Three-year follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification

J. Nekolová, N. Jirásková, J. Pozlerová, P. Rozsíval

. 2009 ; 148 (3) : 390-395.

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, srovnávací studie, financování organizované

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc11019489
E-zdroje

NLK ScienceDirect (archiv) od 1993-01-01 do 2009-12-31

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the degree of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification methods during the 3-year follow-up period. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital in Hradec Kralove. Patients with bilateral cataract were included. AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX in the left eye of each patient. The AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lens (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) was implanted in all eyes. The Evaluation of Posterior Capsule Opacification (EPCO) 2000 software (Developed by Tetz MR and associates, Berlin, Germany) and the Open-Access Systematic Capsule Assessment (OSCA) system (Devised by Aslam TM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom) were used for PCO assessment 1, 2, and 3 years after cataract surgery. RESULTS: Fifty patients were analyzed 1 year, 47 patients 2 years, and 46 patients 3 years after cataract surgery. Mean EPCO 2000 values were for the AquaLase group 0.324 +/- 0.305 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.298 +/- 0.341 (P = .53) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.429 +/- 0.322 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.478 +/- 0.337 (P = .30) 2 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.582 +/- 0.506 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.594 +/- 0.515 (P = .87) 3 years after surgery. The OSCA results were for the AquaLase group 0.7097 +/- 0.3778 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.8584 +/- 0.4323 (P = .046) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.7515 +/- 0.4555 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.8103 +/- 0.4498 (P = .44) 2 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.9667 +/- 0.736 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.9540 +/- 0.5250 (P = .91) 3 years after surgery. Neodymium-yttrium-aluminun-garnet capsulotomy rate for AquaLase vs NeoSoniX was 0:1 eyes 1 year, 1:3 eyes 2 years, and 1:4 eyes 3 years after surgery. No significant difference between those 2 groups was established, except the OSCA outcomes 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: There was only minimal PCO difference between these 2 approaches, AquaLase and NeoSoniX. Neither AquaLase nor NeoSoniX technique was able to prevent a natural progression of PCO.

000      
03873naa 2200433 a 4500
001      
bmc11019489
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20121101114138.0
008      
110714s2009 xxu e eng||
009      
AR
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Nekolová, Jana. $7 xx0237420
245    10
$a Three-year follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification / $c J. Nekolová, N. Jirásková, J. Pozlerová, P. Rozsíval
314    __
$a Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital in Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. jani.nekolova@seznam.cz
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the degree of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification methods during the 3-year follow-up period. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Setting at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital in Hradec Kralove. Patients with bilateral cataract were included. AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX in the left eye of each patient. The AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lens (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) was implanted in all eyes. The Evaluation of Posterior Capsule Opacification (EPCO) 2000 software (Developed by Tetz MR and associates, Berlin, Germany) and the Open-Access Systematic Capsule Assessment (OSCA) system (Devised by Aslam TM, Edinburgh, United Kingdom) were used for PCO assessment 1, 2, and 3 years after cataract surgery. RESULTS: Fifty patients were analyzed 1 year, 47 patients 2 years, and 46 patients 3 years after cataract surgery. Mean EPCO 2000 values were for the AquaLase group 0.324 +/- 0.305 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.298 +/- 0.341 (P = .53) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.429 +/- 0.322 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.478 +/- 0.337 (P = .30) 2 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.582 +/- 0.506 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.594 +/- 0.515 (P = .87) 3 years after surgery. The OSCA results were for the AquaLase group 0.7097 +/- 0.3778 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.8584 +/- 0.4323 (P = .046) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.7515 +/- 0.4555 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.8103 +/- 0.4498 (P = .44) 2 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.9667 +/- 0.736 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.9540 +/- 0.5250 (P = .91) 3 years after surgery. Neodymium-yttrium-aluminun-garnet capsulotomy rate for AquaLase vs NeoSoniX was 0:1 eyes 1 year, 1:3 eyes 2 years, and 1:4 eyes 3 years after surgery. No significant difference between those 2 groups was established, except the OSCA outcomes 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: There was only minimal PCO difference between these 2 approaches, AquaLase and NeoSoniX. Neither AquaLase nor NeoSoniX technique was able to prevent a natural progression of PCO.
590    __
$a bohemika - dle Pubmed
650    _2
$a katarakta $x etiologie $x patofyziologie $x terapie $7 D002386
650    _2
$a progrese nemoci $7 D018450
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a laserová terapie $7 D053685
650    _2
$a lasery pevnolátkové $7 D053844
650    _2
$a pouzdro oční čočky $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D007903
650    _2
$a implantace nitrooční čočky $7 D019654
650    _2
$a fakoemulzifikace $x metody $x přístrojové vybavení $7 D018918
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $7 D011183
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a zraková ostrost $7 D014792
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a financování organizované $7 D005381
700    1_
$a Jirásková, Naďa, $d 1965- $7 mzk2007395044
700    1_
$a Pozlerová, Jana, $d 1981- $7 xx0139721
700    1_
$a Rozsíval, Pavel, $d 1950- $7 nlk19990073794
773    0_
$t American Journal of Ophthalmology $w MED00000272 $g Roč. 148, č. 3 (2009), s. 390-395
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 615 $y 2
990    __
$a 20110715113950 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20121101114142 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 864450 $s 729365
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2009 $x MED00000272 $b 148 $c 3 $d 390-395 $m American journal of ophthalmology $n Am J Ophthalmol
LZP    __
$a 2011-3B09/Bjvme

Najít záznam