• Something wrong with this record ?

Long-term follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification

A. Stepanov, J. Nekolova, N. Jiraskova, P. Rozsival

. 2016 ; 160 (1) : 143-148. [pub] 20150903

Language English Country Czech Republic

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc17006147

AIM: To compare the degree of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification methods during an 8-year follow-up period using two types of software. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX in the left eye of each patient with bilateral cataract. RESULTS: Fifty patients were analyzed 1 year, 46 patients 3 years, and 37 patients 8 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 = 0.53) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.582 ± 0.506 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.594 ± 0.515 (P = 0.87) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.648 ± 0.567 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.673 ± 0.542 (P = 0.30) 8 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 = 0.046) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.9667 ± 0.736 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.9540 ± 0.5250 (P = 0.91) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 1,035 ± 0,952 and for the NeoSoniX group 1,103 ± 0,741 (P = 0.44) 8 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: There was minimal PCO difference between these 2 approaches, AquaLase and NeoSoniX. Neither AquaLase nor NeoSoniX technique was able to prevent a natural progression of PCO.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc17006147
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20170308132823.0
007      
ta
008      
170210s2016 xr d f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.5507/bp.2015.039 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26365930
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Stěpanov, Alexandr $u Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $7 xx0227507
245    10
$a Long-term follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification / $c A. Stepanov, J. Nekolova, N. Jiraskova, P. Rozsival
520    9_
$a AIM: To compare the degree of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification methods during an 8-year follow-up period using two types of software. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. METHODS: AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX in the left eye of each patient with bilateral cataract. RESULTS: Fifty patients were analyzed 1 year, 46 patients 3 years, and 37 patients 8 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 = 0.53) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.582 ± 0.506 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.594 ± 0.515 (P = 0.87) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.648 ± 0.567 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.673 ± 0.542 (P = 0.30) 8 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 = 0.046) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.9667 ± 0.736 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.9540 ± 0.5250 (P = 0.91) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 1,035 ± 0,952 and for the NeoSoniX group 1,103 ± 0,741 (P = 0.44) 8 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: There was minimal PCO difference between these 2 approaches, AquaLase and NeoSoniX. Neither AquaLase nor NeoSoniX technique was able to prevent a natural progression of PCO.
650    _2
$a zkalení zadního pouzdra čočky $x etiologie $7 D058442
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a fakoemulzifikace $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D018918
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x etiologie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Nekolová, Jana $u Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $7 xx0237420
700    1_
$a Jirásková, Naďa, $u Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $d 1965- $7 mzk2007395044
700    1_
$a Rozsíval, Pavel, $u Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $d 1950- $7 nlk19990073794
773    0_
$w MED00012606 $t Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czech Republic $x 1213-8118 $g Roč. 160, č. 1 (2016), s. 143-148
856    41
$u http://biomed.papers.upol.cz/ $y domovská stránka časopisu
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 1502 $c 958 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20170210 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20170308103209 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1192630 $s 966794
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 160 $c 1 $d 143-148 $e 20150903 $i 1213-8118 $m Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacký, Olomouc Czech Republic $n Biomed. Pap. Fac. Med. Palacký Univ. Olomouc Czech Repub. (Print) $x MED00012606
LZP    __
$b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20170210
Back

Find record

Citation metrics

    Archiving options