1 / 9

Sarosh A. Janjua MD 1 , Sandra L. Cremers MD FACS 1

Visual Outcomes After Implantation of 2 Different Intraocular Lens: AcrySof SA60AT and MemoryLens CV232. Sarosh A. Janjua MD 1 , Sandra L. Cremers MD FACS 1 1. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. PURPOSE.

rafi
Download Presentation

Sarosh A. Janjua MD 1 , Sandra L. Cremers MD FACS 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visual Outcomes After Implantation of 2 Different Intraocular Lens: AcrySof SA60AT and MemoryLens CV232 Sarosh A. Janjua MD1, Sandra L. Cremers MD FACS1 1. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

  2. PURPOSE To compare the differences in visual and surgical outcomes after implantation of AcrySof SA60AT lens versus MemoryLens CV232 lens.

  3. METHODS Study Design Retrospective cohort PopulationA database of 1800 phacoemulsifications performed by residents at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary . Selection Criteria Patients were recruited in two groups : those that were implanted with SA60AT (727 eyes) and those that were implanted with CV232 (108 eyes) Exclusion Criteria Included any co-exitsing ocular pathology that might affect visual acuity, such as glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration and previous ocular surgery/trauma.

  4. METHODS A complete ophthalmological assessment was performed at 1 day, 1 week, 1, 3, 6-9, 12 and 18 months, and the findings were noted. A number of visual outcomes, including visual acuity in LogMAR units, were compared between the two groups, as well as surgical outcomes. Major confounders like history of glaucoma, diabetes, and previous ocular surgery, as well as the level of experience of the surgeon were controlled for statistically. The analysis was performed using STATA Version 9.

  5. RESULTS There was significantly greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) with SA60AT lens than with CV232 at 3 months (p = 0.04), 6-9 months (p = 0.02), and 12 and 18 months (both p < 0.001). The rate of improvement in BCVA was significantly faster for SA60AT than for CV232 (p < 0.001). CV232 lens had a greater incidence of both posterior capsule opacification and YAG capsulotomy (both p <0.001).

  6. *Statistically significant by Fisher’s exact test. †No significant group differences were found for vitrectomy rates or posterior tears after controlling for level of the surgeon.

  7. CONCLUSIONS Patients implanted with SA60AT lens had greater and faster improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) than those implanted with CV232 lens. Incidence of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and YAG capsulotomy was higher for patients implanted with CV232.

  8. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES None

More Related