Barcelona 2015 Programme Registration Glaucoma Day 2015 Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Hotel Booking Star Alliance
ISTANBUL escrs









Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress

video-icon

Then register to join us
in Barcelona!





Comparison of the two generations of medennium posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses for correction of myopia

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Session Details

Session Title: Phakic IOLs II

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 08/09/2015 | 14:00-16:00

Paper Time: 14:24

Venue: Room 17

First Author: : A.Shipunova RUSSIA

Co Author(s): :    D. Dementiev   M. Sysoeva                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare the visual outcomes and complications of the new generation (MPL) and the previous generation (PRL) of Medennium posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation for correction of myopia.

Setting:

Blue Eye” Centro di Chirurgia Oculare, Milano, Italy, “International Center for Ophthalmology”, Moscow, Russia

Methods:

We reviewed 109 myopic eyes undergoing PIOL implantation using PRL (54 eyes) and MPL (55 eyes) in which refractive errors ranged from -3.25 to -27.00 diopters (D). The mean follow-up period was 13.18±9.64 months. Autorefractometry, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical biometry, intraocular pressure (IOP), OCT Visante, corneal endothelial cell (CEC) loss were compared.

Results:

The mean SE changed from -11.75±5.81D to -0.42±0.82D in the PRL group and from-11.59±4.97D to -0.46± 0.92D in the MPL group. The UCVA improved from 1.54±0.29 (logMAR) to 0.19±0.25 in the PRL and from 1.63±0.25 to 0.18±0.29 in the MPL group. BCVA changed from 0.21±0.25 to 0.09±0.16 in the PRL and from 0.23±0.29 to 0.08±0.17 in the MPL. The mean distance between Crystalline lens and PIOL in PRL group – 362,44±91 µm, in MPL group – 373,62 ±74 µm. No statistically CEC induced by the PRL (P<.05). No induced cataract, glaucoma, or inflammation was observed.

Conclusions:

The visual outcomes of the MPL and PRL implantation show comparable efficacy, predictability and stability of results.

Financial Interest:

One of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company

Back to previous