April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Posterior Capsule Opacification In Acri.Lyc35a Versus AcrisofSA60at
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Martina T. Kralinger
    Ophthalmology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Aleksandra Rogic
    Ophthalmology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Josef Troger
    Ophthalmology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Gerhard F. Kieselbach
    Ophthalmology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Martina T. Kralinger, None; Aleksandra Rogic, None; Josef Troger, None; Gerhard F. Kieselbach, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 6206. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Martina T. Kralinger, Aleksandra Rogic, Josef Troger, Gerhard F. Kieselbach; Posterior Capsule Opacification In Acri.Lyc35a Versus AcrisofSA60at. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):6206.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : The aim of this prospective, controlled study was to compare the outcome after cataract surgery in respect to posterior capsule opacification after implantation of two different foldable, single piece lenses. The AcrysofSA60AT (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA) represents a well known and established purely hydrophobic acrylic IOL (AcrySof) SA60AT;), while the Acri.Lyc35A (Acri.Tec GmbH, Carl Zeiss Meditec Company, Hennigsdorf) is a relatively new lens which features a central hydrophilic part covered by a hydrophobic part.

Methods: : Fifty- three eyes were included and they were randomized to implantation of either a hydrophilic/hydrophobic Acri.Lyc35A or a hydrophobic acrylic AcrySof SA60AT. Six and twelve months after surgery, posterior capsular opacification rate, contrast sensitivity, best corrected visual acuity and intraocular pressure were measured.

Results: : Overall a posterior capsular opacification was recorded in 22,6% eyes and there was no statistical difference between the two lenses. In patients implanted with the hydrophilic IOL the rate was 13,2% versus 9,4% in patients with the hydrophilic/hydrophobic lens. There was no difference in contrast sensitivity when comparing the eyes without posterior capsular opacification. Yet, eyes with posterior capsular opacification showed better contrast sensitivity with AcrySof SA60AT than with Acri.Lyc35A (p>0,001). In respect to best visual acuities, no significant difference between groups was observed.

Conclusions: : One year after surgery, the only difference between both groups was the contrast sensitivity in presence of posterior capsule opacification which was significantly better in the AcrySof SA60AT group.

Keywords: posterior capsular opacification (PCO) • intraocular lens • visual acuity 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.