Hodnocení opacit zadního pouzdra u různých typů umelých nitroocních cocek
[Evaluation of the posterior capsule opacification in different types of artificial intraocular lenses]
Language Czech Country Czech Republic Media print
Document type English Abstract, Journal Article
PubMed
19366031
- MeSH
- Acrylates MeSH
- Cataract Extraction * MeSH
- Lens Implantation, Intraocular * MeSH
- Cataract etiology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lenses, Intraocular * MeSH
- Polymethyl Methacrylate MeSH
- Recurrence MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Silicones MeSH
- Visual Acuity MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- English Abstract MeSH
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Acrylates MeSH
- Polymethyl Methacrylate MeSH
- Silicones MeSH
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare posterior capsule opacification (PCO) incidence and the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients who underwent the implantation of intraocular lens (IOL) made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), or hydrophobic acrylic material, or silicone material. All patients were examined 7 years after the surgery at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic, E.U. METHODS: In this 60 study, sixty eyes (44 patients) were evaluated; 20 eyes with IOLs made of PMMA with round edge, 20 eyes with IOLs made of hydrophobic acrylic material with square edge and 20 eyes with IOLs made of silicone material with round edge. They were examined 7 years after surgery. The eyes treated with Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy were excluded from the EPCO 2000 evaluation. The EPCO 2000 software (Evaluation of Posterior Capsule Opacification) was used for PCO assessment. The density of the opacification was graded clinically from 1 to 4. The BCVA, the PCO index for every PCO grade and total PCO index were compared. RESULTS: Mean of total PCO index for PMMA IOLs was 0.451 +/- 0.619; for hydrophobic acrylic IOLs 0.361 +/- 0.397; and for silicone IOLs 0.552 +/- 0.372. During the examination, we have found the BCVA mean to be for PMMA IOLs 0.79 +/- 0.26, for hydrophobic acrylic IOLs 0.87 +/- 0.19, and silicone IOLs 0.78 +/- 0.29 respectively. Twenty eyes of twenty patients required Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy: twelve eyes with PMMA IOLs, two eyes with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs, and six eyes with silicone IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the difference in PCO incidence and BCVA among PMMA, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone IOLs were not statistically significant. The highest incidence of the Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy was in the group of PMMA IOLs, then in silicone IOLs, and the lowest incidence was in the group of hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.