Copenhagen 2016 Registration Programme Exhibitor Information Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2016 Hotel Star Alliance
title

10 - 14 Sept. 2016, Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

This Meeting has been awarded 27 CME credits

 

escrs app advert yo advert

Posters

Search Title by author or title

A 2 year follow-up study of a fully preloaded hydrophobic acrylic IOL

Poster Details

First Author: K. Tjia NETHERLANDS

Co Author(s):                        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate the refractive outcome, posterior capsule opacification and prevalence of glistenings.

Setting:

Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands

Methods:

From 94 eyes initially implanted with the EyeCee One® Preloaded IOL (Model NS-60YG) implanted by a single surgeon between 02 September and 12 December 2013. All eyes had a standard first postoperative visit 29 days on average after surgery. For 57 eyes, a 22 to 24M long term postoperative visit was available. Retro illumination pictures were taken for EPCO scoring. Glistenings were graded by slitlamp examination.

Results:

1 Month postoperative Mean CDVA was 0.08 logMAR (20/25), with a gain of 5 lines compared to the preoperative CDVA. The CDVA was 20/40 or better in 95.7%. At 1 Month after surgery, mean absolute Predictive Error was 0.30 D (± 0.35) with 96.8% of the eyes within 1.00D of the targeted refraction Mean 3 mm central and within the capsulorhexis areas EPCO scores was 0.02 (±0.08), and 0.08 (±0.18) of eyes with 24 months follow up. Total YAG capsulotomy rate after 24 months, including patients which had been treated elsewhere, was 3.2%.

Conclusions:

Refractive outcomes and predictability were well above the recommendations based upon the EUREQUO registry. Posterior capsule opacification rates were very low. No glistenings have been observed during the 24 months follow up period. The disposable EyeCee One® Preloaded IOL (Model NS-60YG) had excellent patient outcomes in this retrospective case series study.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented

Back to Poster listing