Three-year follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
19427990
DOI
10.1016/j.ajo.2009.03.027
PII: S0002-9394(09)00229-3
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Phacoemulsification instrumentation methods MeSH
- Lens Implantation, Intraocular MeSH
- Cataract etiology physiopathology therapy MeSH
- Laser Therapy MeSH
- Lasers, Solid-State MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Postoperative Complications * MeSH
- Lens Capsule, Crystalline pathology surgery MeSH
- Disease Progression MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Visual Acuity MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
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 Králové. 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.
References provided by Crossref.org
ISRCTN
ISRCTN88815601
