Purpose: To compare the incidence and severity of all grades of dysphotopsia in three types of acrylic intraocular lenses: the Acrysof MA30 BA and MA60 BM IOLs (Alcon) and the Akreos Fit one-piece IOL (Bausch and Lomb...Purpose: To compare the incidence and severity of all grades of dysphotopsia in three types of acrylic intraocular lenses: the Acrysof MA30 BA and MA60 BM IOLs (Alcon) and the Akreos Fit one-piece IOL (Bausch and Lomb). Methods: In all 111 patients were prospectively recruited who had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery in the previous 12 months. Patients were assessed using a combination of a questionnaire and standardised provocation test, and were scored on a grading scale of 0-6 (0 indicating no glare and 6 indicating the most severe symptoms). Results: The overall incidence of dysphotopsia was 77.7%. Patients with absent or mild symptoms (scoring 2 or less on the grading scale) were greater in the group implanted with the Akreos IOLs (49/65 eyes, 75%) as opposed to (44/92 eyes, 48%) of the eyes implanted with Acrysof lenses. Patients with more marked symptoms of glare as judged by scores of 5-6 were uncommon, but more prevalent in the Acrysof lenses (12/92 eyes, 13%) compared to the Akreos lenses (3/65 eyes, 4.6%) respectively. Statistically the Mann-Whitney test showed that therewas significantly less dysphotopsia with the Akreos lens when compared to the Acrysof MA30 (P=0.005) and MA60 lenses (P=0.002). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that dysphotopsia symptoms are commonly seen in certain brands of Acrylic IOLs. However, differences in design (not only related to the edge) significantly reduce the incidence of moderate and severe grades of dysphotopic symptoms.展开更多
文摘Purpose: To compare the incidence and severity of all grades of dysphotopsia in three types of acrylic intraocular lenses: the Acrysof MA30 BA and MA60 BM IOLs (Alcon) and the Akreos Fit one-piece IOL (Bausch and Lomb). Methods: In all 111 patients were prospectively recruited who had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery in the previous 12 months. Patients were assessed using a combination of a questionnaire and standardised provocation test, and were scored on a grading scale of 0-6 (0 indicating no glare and 6 indicating the most severe symptoms). Results: The overall incidence of dysphotopsia was 77.7%. Patients with absent or mild symptoms (scoring 2 or less on the grading scale) were greater in the group implanted with the Akreos IOLs (49/65 eyes, 75%) as opposed to (44/92 eyes, 48%) of the eyes implanted with Acrysof lenses. Patients with more marked symptoms of glare as judged by scores of 5-6 were uncommon, but more prevalent in the Acrysof lenses (12/92 eyes, 13%) compared to the Akreos lenses (3/65 eyes, 4.6%) respectively. Statistically the Mann-Whitney test showed that therewas significantly less dysphotopsia with the Akreos lens when compared to the Acrysof MA30 (P=0.005) and MA60 lenses (P=0.002). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that dysphotopsia symptoms are commonly seen in certain brands of Acrylic IOLs. However, differences in design (not only related to the edge) significantly reduce the incidence of moderate and severe grades of dysphotopic symptoms.
