The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ucar,Fikret
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Cetinkaya,Servet
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802020000600386
Resumo: Abstract Purpose: To evaluate six different premium IOLs retrospectively in respect to both subjective and objective refraction after cataract operation. Methods: Five hundreds and seventy eyes of 285 patients with bilateral cataract who had undergone phacoemulsification and IOL implantation operation between February 2017 and September 2018 were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 57.78 ± 7.49 (41-71) years. Out of 285 patients 137 were male (48.07%) and 148 were female (51.93%). TheIOLsusedare: RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK), Lucidis (Swiss Advanced Vision, Neuchâtel, Switzerland), PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, USA), LentisMplus (Oculentis, Berlin, Germany), TecnisSymfony (Abbott, Illinois, USA) and Acriva Trinova (VSY Biotechnology, Istanbul, Turkey). Results: There were no significant differences among the groups regarding age, sex, axial length, the mean preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and the mean postoperative SE (subjective measurement) (P> .05). The postoperative refractions measured with autorefractometer were more myopic than subjective refractions in all patients except the patients who had PanOptix IOL. In postoperative twelfth month, the mean UCVA arrived 0.00 logMAR in 405 eyes (78.48%) , however, the mean autorefractometric measurement was -1.28 ± 1.02 (0.00_-2.75) D. Conclusion: The autorefractometer measurements of all patients who had premium IOLs except PanOptix IOL were not coherent with their visual acuities postoperatively. The ophthalmologists and/or optometrists should be careful while examining these types of patients.
id SBO-1_20c698eed55cdcc73f44ee3806ca2d83
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-72802020000600386
network_acronym_str SBO-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lensesLenses, intraocularObjective refractionSubjective refractionVisual acuityAbstract Purpose: To evaluate six different premium IOLs retrospectively in respect to both subjective and objective refraction after cataract operation. Methods: Five hundreds and seventy eyes of 285 patients with bilateral cataract who had undergone phacoemulsification and IOL implantation operation between February 2017 and September 2018 were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 57.78 ± 7.49 (41-71) years. Out of 285 patients 137 were male (48.07%) and 148 were female (51.93%). TheIOLsusedare: RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK), Lucidis (Swiss Advanced Vision, Neuchâtel, Switzerland), PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, USA), LentisMplus (Oculentis, Berlin, Germany), TecnisSymfony (Abbott, Illinois, USA) and Acriva Trinova (VSY Biotechnology, Istanbul, Turkey). Results: There were no significant differences among the groups regarding age, sex, axial length, the mean preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and the mean postoperative SE (subjective measurement) (P> .05). The postoperative refractions measured with autorefractometer were more myopic than subjective refractions in all patients except the patients who had PanOptix IOL. In postoperative twelfth month, the mean UCVA arrived 0.00 logMAR in 405 eyes (78.48%) , however, the mean autorefractometric measurement was -1.28 ± 1.02 (0.00_-2.75) D. Conclusion: The autorefractometer measurements of all patients who had premium IOLs except PanOptix IOL were not coherent with their visual acuities postoperatively. The ophthalmologists and/or optometrists should be careful while examining these types of patients.Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia2020-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802020000600386Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.79 n.6 2020reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)instacron:SBO10.5935/0034-7280.20200084info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUcar,FikretCetinkaya,Serveteng2021-02-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-72802020000600386Revistahttps://rbo.emnuvens.com.br/rbo/indexhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpsob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br1982-85510034-7280opendoar:2021-02-01T00:00Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
title The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
spellingShingle The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
Ucar,Fikret
Lenses, intraocular
Objective refraction
Subjective refraction
Visual acuity
title_short The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
title_full The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
title_fullStr The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
title_full_unstemmed The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
title_sort The evaluation of postoperative objective and subjective refraction for premium intraocular lenses
author Ucar,Fikret
author_facet Ucar,Fikret
Cetinkaya,Servet
author_role author
author2 Cetinkaya,Servet
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ucar,Fikret
Cetinkaya,Servet
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Lenses, intraocular
Objective refraction
Subjective refraction
Visual acuity
topic Lenses, intraocular
Objective refraction
Subjective refraction
Visual acuity
description Abstract Purpose: To evaluate six different premium IOLs retrospectively in respect to both subjective and objective refraction after cataract operation. Methods: Five hundreds and seventy eyes of 285 patients with bilateral cataract who had undergone phacoemulsification and IOL implantation operation between February 2017 and September 2018 were enrolled in this study. The mean age of the patients was 57.78 ± 7.49 (41-71) years. Out of 285 patients 137 were male (48.07%) and 148 were female (51.93%). TheIOLsusedare: RayOne Trifocal (Rayner, Worthing, UK), Lucidis (Swiss Advanced Vision, Neuchâtel, Switzerland), PanOptix (Alcon, Fort Worth, USA), LentisMplus (Oculentis, Berlin, Germany), TecnisSymfony (Abbott, Illinois, USA) and Acriva Trinova (VSY Biotechnology, Istanbul, Turkey). Results: There were no significant differences among the groups regarding age, sex, axial length, the mean preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) and the mean postoperative SE (subjective measurement) (P> .05). The postoperative refractions measured with autorefractometer were more myopic than subjective refractions in all patients except the patients who had PanOptix IOL. In postoperative twelfth month, the mean UCVA arrived 0.00 logMAR in 405 eyes (78.48%) , however, the mean autorefractometric measurement was -1.28 ± 1.02 (0.00_-2.75) D. Conclusion: The autorefractometer measurements of all patients who had premium IOLs except PanOptix IOL were not coherent with their visual acuities postoperatively. The ophthalmologists and/or optometrists should be careful while examining these types of patients.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802020000600386
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802020000600386
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/0034-7280.20200084
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.79 n.6 2020
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
instacron:SBO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
instacron_str SBO
institution SBO
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv sob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br
_version_ 1752122339141615616