Three-Year Follow-up of Posterior Capsule Opacification After AquaLase and NeoSoniX Phacoemulsification

Nekolová, Jana; Jirásková, N; Pozlerová, J; Rozsíval, P

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.03.027

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The previous results of this study after 1, 2 and 3-year follow-up have been published 12 . In order to investigate whether the difference in PCO rates after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification was consistent over longer period of time, an 8-year follow-up was performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Study design, image acquisition, and computer analysis of PCO, as well as the statistical methods and sample size calculation used, were exactly the same as in our previous publication 12 . Thirty-seven patients of the original 62 were included in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All surgeries were performed in the years 2004 and 2005 at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital in Hradec Kralove. The AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX was used in the left eye of each patient 12,14 . All surgeries were performed by 1 of 2 skilled surgeons (N.J., P.R.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Long-term follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification

Stepanov¹,

Nekolová²,

Jirásková³

et al. 2016

BIOMED PAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim.To compare the degree of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification methods during an 8-year follow-up period using two types of software. Design. Prospective, randomized clinical trial. Methods. AquaLase was used in the right eye and NeoSoniX in the left eye of each patient with bilateral cataract. Results. Fifty patients were analyzed 1 year, 46 patients 3 years, and 37 patients 8 years after cataract surgery. Mean EPCO 2000 values were for the AquaLase group 0.324 ± 0.305 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.298 ± 0.341 (P = 0.53) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.582 ± 0.506 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.594 ± 0.515 (P = 0.87) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 0.648 ± 0.567 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.673 ± 0.542 (P = 0.30) 8 years after surgery. The OSCA results were for the AquaLase group 0.7097 ± 0.3778 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.8584 ± 0.4323 (P = 0.046) 1 year after surgery, for the AquaLase group 0.9667 ± 0.736 and for the NeoSoniX group 0.9540 ± 0.5250 (P = 0.91) 3 years after surgery, and for the AquaLase group 1,035 ± 0,952 and for the NeoSoniX group 1,103 ± 0,741 (P = 0.44) 8 years after surgery. Conclusion. There was minimal PCO difference between these 2 approaches, AquaLase and NeoSoniX. Neither AquaLase nor NeoSoniX technique was able to prevent a natural progression of PCO.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-term follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after AquaLase and NeoSoniX phacoemulsification

Stepanov¹,

Nekolová²,

Jirásková³

et al. 2016

BIOMED PAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,[27][28][29] The mean values of Total PCO score in a two-year follow-up calculated according to the EPCO system in the case of IOLs constructed on the basis of AcrySof platform are low and are within the limit from 0.145 to 0.478. 30,31 The calculated in the same way values for PMMA IOLs covered with heparin (809C, Pharmacia&Upjohn) were 0.741, for hydrophilic acryl IOLs (Centerflex 570H, Rayner) 0.78, whereas for silicone IOLs (SI-40NB, Allergan) 1.807. 10,30 It should be noted that IOLs 809C (Pharma&Upjohn) and SI-40NB (Allergan) have round-edged optics, which undoubtedly is the main cause of higher values of Total PCO score, 27,28,[32][33][34] whereas in the case of Centerflex 570H (Rayner) IOLs with sharp-edged optics the material from which they are constructed can play a role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30,31 The calculated in the same way values for PMMA IOLs covered with heparin (809C, Pharmacia&Upjohn) were 0.741, for hydrophilic acryl IOLs (Centerflex 570H, Rayner) 0.78, whereas for silicone IOLs (SI-40NB, Allergan) 1.807. 10,30 It should be noted that IOLs 809C (Pharma&Upjohn) and SI-40NB (Allergan) have round-edged optics, which undoubtedly is the main cause of higher values of Total PCO score, 27,28,[32][33][34] whereas in the case of Centerflex 570H (Rayner) IOLs with sharp-edged optics the material from which they are constructed can play a role. 2,31,35 Thus, the severity of PCO depends on many factors and methods of LEC proliferation prevention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%