Purchase this article with an account.
MP Maiberger, TM Magone, SA Merrill, JM Lustbader; The Incidence of Posterior Capsular Opacification after STARR Silicone Lens Versus STAAR Collamer Lens Implantation . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):427.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To compare the incidence of posterior capsule opacification, laser capsulotomy rates, and visual outcome with silicone versus collamer intraocular lens implants at six months postoperatively. Methods: Forty-one eyes of twenty-four patients from consecutive cataract surgeries were compared six months after surgery. A standardized surgical protocol was followed by the same surgeon using phacoemulsification with capsulorhexis. Patients with surgical complications were excluded from the study. All patients received standardized medication and follow-up by a masked examiner. Patients were examined at postoperative days one, seven, thirty, and at six months. At each visit best corrected Snellen visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and slit lamp biomicroscopy were performed. Laser capsulotomy was performed if the eye had lost two lines of visual acuity with clinically detectable and symptomatic posterior capsule opacification. Results: The incidence of posterior capsule opacification was higher in the STAAR silicone lens group than the collamer group. At six months postoperatively, five out of twenty-two eyes with the STAAR silicone lens underwent YAG laser capsulotomy. In contrast, only one out of nineteen eyes in the collamer lens group required YAG laser capsulotomy (P= 0.04; T test). Visually acuity was not significantly different between the two groups. Intraocular pressure was within normal limits in both groups. Conclusion: We describe a higher incidence of posterior capsule opacification requiring YAG laser capsulotomy with STAAR silicone intraocular lens implantation compared with collamer intraocular lens implantation. However, there was no statistically significant difference in visual outcomes between the two groups.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only