ESCRS - PP19.05 - A Prospective, Randomized Comparative Clinical Study To Compare The Safety And Efficacy Of Different Hydrophobic Aspheric Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

A Prospective, Randomized Comparative Clinical Study To Compare The Safety And Efficacy Of Different Hydrophobic Aspheric Monofocal Intraocular Lenses

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP19.05 | Type: ESCRS 2022 - Posters | DOI: 10.82333/kf8m-2k86

Authors: Siddharth Duggal* 1 , SHEETAL BRAR 1 , HEMANTH VANGA REDDY 1 , SRI GANESH 1

1Phaco-Refractive Department,Nethradhama Super Speciality Eye Hospital, Bangalore,Bangalore,India

Purpose

To report one-year clinical outcomes related to safety, efficacy, predictability, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, complications, and overall results with Optiflex Genesis and Eyecryl Plus ASHFY600  monofocal aspheric intraocular lenses and compare the same with the Tecnis-1 monofocal IOL.

Setting

Department of Phaco-Refractive Surgery, Nethradhama Super Speciality Eye Hospital, 256/14, Kanakapura main road, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India-560070

Methods

This prospective, single-centre, single surgeon, randomized, three arm study included 159 eyes of 140 eligible patients, who underwent cataract extraction with IOL implantation with either of the three study lenses. Clinical outcomes related to safety, efficacy, predictability, contrast sensitivity, patient satisfaction, complications, and overall results were compared at the mean follow-up of one-year (12± 1.20) months. 

Results

Pre-op, the age and baseline ocular parameters of all the 3 groups were matched. At 12 months post-op, no significant differences were noted between the groups in mean post-operative UDVA, CDVA, sphere, cylinder and SE, p>0.05 for all parameters. 89% eyes in the Optiflex Genesis group, versus 96% eyes in the Tecnis-1 and Eyecryl plus HD groups were within  ±0.5 D, and 100% of eyes in all the three groups were within ±1.00 D of SE accuracy. Post-op internal HOA and coma, and mesopic contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies were comparable. Two eyes in the Tecnis-1, 2 eyes in the Optiflex and 1 eye in the Eyecryl group underwent YAG capsulotomy at the last follow-up. No eye in either group showed glistenings or required IOL exchange.

Conclusions

At one year post-op, all the three lenses aspheric lenses showed comparable results for visual and refractive parameters, post-op abberations, contrast sensitivity and PCO behaviour. Further follow-up is needed to evaluate the long term behaviour for refractive stability and PCO rates with these lenses.