2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of intraocular lens mechanical stability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In laboratory studies this lens has been shown to produce low levels of surface haze, roughness and light scatter, minimal glistenings and little axial displacement when compared to other hydrophobic acrylic IOLs. [24][25][26] Whilst these results are encouraging, there are no published clinical studies at this time. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate visual performance, refractive outcomes, patient satisfaction and glistenings occurrence at 12 months following implantation of the Clareon® IOL compared to the Tecnis PCB00® (Johnson & Johnson Inc.), which has a low rate of reported glistenings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In laboratory studies this lens has been shown to produce low levels of surface haze, roughness and light scatter, minimal glistenings and little axial displacement when compared to other hydrophobic acrylic IOLs. [24][25][26] Whilst these results are encouraging, there are no published clinical studies at this time. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate visual performance, refractive outcomes, patient satisfaction and glistenings occurrence at 12 months following implantation of the Clareon® IOL compared to the Tecnis PCB00® (Johnson & Johnson Inc.), which has a low rate of reported glistenings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Also, the differences in polychromatic image quality generated by altering IOL Abbe number are likely to be much smaller than those generated by other defocus sources. For example, recent data indicate that about 28% of pseudophakic eyes experience a residual spherical refractive error >0.5D, 36 which has been attributed to challenges of estimating post-op anterior chamber depth 37 and post-operative IOL axial instabilities, 38 which can vary with both IOL design 39 and surgical procedure. 38 Unlike the absence of a measurable visual impact of changing IOL Abbe number, 15,40 the larger spherical refractive errors attributable IOL axial power and position errors produce significant reductions in visual acuity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an experimental study, the Clareon CNA0T0 had the lowest levels of axial displacement and corresponding simulated dioptric power shift over all tested compression diameters compared with other one-piece acrylic IOLs, i.e., the MX60 (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY, USA), ZCB00 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA, USA), and XY1 (HOYA, Tokyo, Japan) IOLs [5]. The current results showed that the ACD was stable at 1 week postoperatively, and the subjective refraction stabilized on day 1 postoperatively.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 93%
“…Several experimental and clinical studies have reported that the new lens had the lowest levels of surface and bulk inhomogeneities and optical characteristics including surface light scattering, glistenings, and chromatic aberration compared to the commercially available IOLs, those resulted in good clinical outcomes [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Several previous reports have evaluated the clinical results of the Clareon IOL with the AutonoMe 1 automated delivery system [2,11]; however, no reports have described the early postoperative refractive stability or the postoperative wound-repair process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%