Safety of hydroimplantation: a foldable intraocular lens implantation without the use of an ophthalmic viscosurgical device
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
PubMed
24846622
DOI
10.5301/ejo.5000491
PII: ADCCD115-9105-4E43-836B-26E9215E2754
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Double-Blind Method MeSH
- Phacoemulsification methods MeSH
- Lens Implantation, Intraocular methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lenses, Intraocular * MeSH
- Intraocular Pressure physiology MeSH
- Intraoperative Complications MeSH
- Postoperative Complications MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Tonometry, Ocular MeSH
- Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss pathology MeSH
- Viscosupplementation methods MeSH
- Viscosupplements administration & dosage MeSH
- Visual Acuity physiology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Viscosupplements MeSH
PURPOSE: To compare the safety of a single-piece, foldable intraocular lens (IOL) hydroimplantation with that of a standard implantation using an ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD). METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract surgery were enrolled into a prospective double-blind study. Each patient's first eye was randomly assigned to a standard implantation technique with an OVD or the hydroimplantation technique, while the fellow eye received the opposite technique. The main outcomes measured were endothelial cell loss, postoperative changes of intraocular pressure (IOP), and the frequency of complications. RESULTS: The reduction of endothelial cell density 1 month and 6 months after the surgery was 9.76% ± 13.5%, 10.7% ± 12.6%, respectively, in group A (OVD) and 9.07% ± 12.7%, 9.13% ± 13.7%, respectively, in group B (hydroimplantation). The differences were not statistically significant. The mean IOP 2 hours after surgery was 10.19 ± 6.78 mm Hg in group A and 9.92 ± 7.01 mm Hg in group B. Twenty-four hours and 1 month after surgery, the mean IOP was 14.52 ± 5.59 mm Hg and 13.21 ± 3.5 mm Hg, respectively, in group A, and 15.45 ± 5.77 mm Hg and 13.1 ± 3.44 mm Hg, respectively, in group B. The differences between groups A and B were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The hydroimplantation technique is a safe technique for single-piece foldable IOL implantation. There was no increase in intraoperative and postoperative complications compared with the standard implantation technique using an OVD.
References provided by Crossref.org