Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of clinical outcomes following implantation of a sub-2-mm hydrophilic acrylic MICS intraocular lens

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate clinical outcomes following sub-2-mm microincision cataract surgery (MICS) and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

Setting

Five EU clinical sites.

Design

Prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, non-randomized.

Methods

Preoperative assessment involved visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure and biometry measurements. 1.4-mm wound-assisted or 1.8-mm MICS was performed. Follow-up visits were made 1 day, 1–2 weeks, 1–2 and 4–6 months after surgery. The incision size, corrected distance VA (CDVA), uncorrected distance VA, manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), refraction predictability/stability and IOL decentration were assessed. At 12-, 18-, and 24-month, long-term centration, posterior capsular opacification (PCO) and Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates were investigated.

Results

A total of 103 eyes were implanted with the study IOL (INCISE, Bausch & Lomb), 96 of which were included in visual outcome analysis. A mean 6-month CDVA of − 0.02 logMAR (20/20 + 1) was observed and 75 eyes (79.8%) and 93 eyes (98.3%) achieved a visual acuity of at least 20/20 or 20/40. Mean MRSE was − 0.20 ± 0.60 D. Mean absolute predictive error was 0.44 ± 0.36 D, with 90.4% within 1.00 D of target. Mean total decentration was 0.35 ± 0.36 mm at 6 months and 0.32 ± 0.14 mm at 24 months (p > 0.05). 24-month evaluation of posterior capsular opacification score was 0.03 for the central area. A Nd:YAG rate of 3.4% was observed at 24 months.

Conclusions

The new MICS IOL provided excellent visual outcomes and was safe and effective for the sub-2-mm procedure. The MICS IOL demonstrated long-term centration, stability and a low rate of PCO development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klonowski P, Rejdak R, Alió JL (2013) Microincision cataract surgery 1.8 mm incisional surgery. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 8(4):375–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Yu JG, Zhao YE, Shi JL, Ye T, Jin N, Wang QM, Feng YF (2012) Biaxial microincision cataract surgery versus conventional coaxial cataract surgery: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:894–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Agarwal A, Bagmar A, Patel N, Pandey SK, Shah SP (2001) Phakonit lens removal through a 0.9 mm incision [letter]. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1531–1532 (reply by H Tsunoka, 1532–1533)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y (2002) Ultrasonic phacoemulsification using a 1.4 mm incision: clinical results. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:81–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alio JL, Rodriguez Prats JL, Galal A (eds) (2004) MICS: micro-incision cataract surgery. Highlights of Ophthalmology International, El Dorado, Panama

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dick HB (2012) Controlled clinical trial comparing biaxial microincision with coaxial small incision for cataract surgery. Eur J Ophthalmol 22:739–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alio JL, Rodrıguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M (2005) Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology 112:1997–2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Elkady B, Alio JL, Ortiz D, Montalban R (2008) Corneal aberrations after microincision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F (1995) The correlation between incision size and corneal shape changes in sutureless cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 102:550–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American National Standards Institute (2010) ANSI Z80.30—2010: ophthalmics—toric intraocular lenses. American National Standards Institute, New York, p 2010

    Google Scholar 

  11. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 11979-7:2006(E) ophthalmic implants—intraocular lenses—Part 7: clinical investigations, 2006. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lundström M, Barry P, Henry Y, Rosen P, Stenevi U (2012) Evidence-based guidelines for cataract surgery: guidelines based on data in the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery database. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1086–1093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. ULIB User group for laser interference biometry. http://ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.htm. Accessed 22 March 2015

  14. Klonowski P, Rejdak R, Alio JL (2013) Microincision cataract surgery: 1.8 mm incisional surgery. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 8:375–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilczynski M, Supady E, Loba P, Synder A, Palenga-Pydyn D, Omulecki W (2009) Comparison of early corneal endothelial cell loss after coaxial phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm microincision and bimanual phacoemulsification through 1.7 mm microincision. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1570–1574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M (2009) Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 23:149–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Baumeister M, Buehren J, Kohnen T (2009) Tilt and decentration of spherical and aspheric intraocular lenses: effect on higher order aberrations. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Buckhurst PJ, Woffsohn JS, Naroo SA, Davies LN (2010) Rotational and centration stability of an aspheric intraocular lens with a simulated toric design. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1523–1528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolffsohn JS, Buckhurst PJ (2010) Objective analysis of toric intraocular lens rotation and centration. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:778–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Crnej A, Hirnschall N, Nishi Y et al (2011) Impact of intraocular lens haptic design and orientation on decentration and tilt. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1768–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Xing XJ, Tang X, Song H (2012) Comparison of optical performance and stability of five different kinds of aspheric IOLs. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 48:297–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nishi O, Nishi K (1999) Preventing posterior capsule opacification by creating a discontinuous sharp bend in the capsule. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:521–526

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nishi O, Nishi K, Sakanishi K (1998) Inhibition of migrating lens epithelial cells at the capsular bend created by the rectangular optic edge of a posterior chamber intraocular lens. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 29:587–594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nishi O, Nishi K, Osakabe Y (2004) Effect of intraocular lenses on preventing posterior capsule opacification: design versus material. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2170–2276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buehl W, Findl O (2008) Effect of Intraocular lens design on posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1976–1985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Findl O, Buehl W, Bauer P, Sycha T (2010) Interventions for preventing posterior capsule opacification. Cochrane Collab 2010:1–81

    Google Scholar 

  27. Werner L, Müeller M, Tetz M (2008) Evaluating and defining the sharpness of intraocular lenses: microedge structure of commercially available suare-edged hydrophobic lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:310–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Werner L, Tetz M, Feldmann I, Bücker M (2009) Evaluating and defining the sharpness of intraocular lenses: microedge structure of commercially available square-edged hydrophilic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:556–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nanavaty MA, Spalton DJ, Boyce J, Brain A, Marshall J (2008) Edge profile of commercially available square-edged intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:677–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roshdy MM, Riad RF, Morkos FF, Hassouna AK, Wahba SS (2013) Effect of a single-piece aspheric hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens design on centration and rotation. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:408–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Miyata K, Kataoka Y, Matsunaga J, Honbo M, Minami K (2015) Prospective comparison of one-piece and three-piece Tecnis aspheric intraocular lenses: 1-year stability and its effect on visual function. Curr Eye Res 40:930–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johansson B (2010) Clinical consequences of acrylic intraocular lens material and design: Nd:YAG-laser capsulotomy rates in 3 × 300 eyes 5 years after phacoemulsification. Br J Ophthalmol 94:450–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zacharopoulos IP, Papadaki T, Segev F, Jager-Roshu S, Assia E (2010) Two-year results of cataract extraction with implantation of the hydrophilic acrylic B-lens. Semin Ophthalmol 25:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gauthier L, Lafuma A, Laurendeau C, Berdeaux G (2010) Nd:YAG laser rates after bilateral implantation of hydrophobic or hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lenses: twenty-four month retrospective comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1195–1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Iwase T, Nishi Y, Oveson BC, Jo YJ (2011) Hydrophobic versus double-square-edged hydrophilic foldable acrylic intraocular lens: effect on posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1060–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Spyridaki PM, Hoeh H (2010) Comparison of four MICS intraocular lenses regarding their rates of neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 227:208–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Selvam S, Khan IJ, Craig EA (2011) Neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy rate of microincision hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:2080–2081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Alió JL, Elkady B, Ortiz D (2011) Corneal optical quality following sub 1.8 mm micro-incision cataract surgery vs. 2.2 mm mini-incision coaxial phacoemulsification. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 17:94–99

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tong N, He JC, Lu F, Wang Q, Qu J, Zhao YE (2008) Changes in corneal wavefront aberrations in microincision and small-incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:2085–2090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Can I, Bayhan HA, Çelik H, Ceran BB (2012) Comparison of corneal aberrations after biaxial microincision and microcoaxial cataract surgeries: a prospective study. Curr Eye Res 37:18–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Denoyer A, Denoyer L, Marotte D, Georget M, Pisella PJ (2008) Intraindividual comparative study of corneal and ocular wavefront aberrations after biaxial microincision versus coaxial small-incision cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 92:1679–1684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This clinical research was initiated and financially supported by Bausch & Lomb. None of the authors have a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned in this paper. Dr Johansson, Prof Dick, Dr Morselli, Dr Toso received travel support for scientific meetings.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Björn Johansson

    Present address: Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Eye Hospital Bochum, In der Schornau 23-25, 44892, Bochum, Germany

    H. Burkhard Dick & Tim Schultz

  2. Centre Ophtalmologique Iridis, Albi, France

    Gilles Lesieur

  3. Ospedale di Bassano del Grappa Bassano del Grappa, Bassano del Grappa, Italy

    Simonetta Morselli & Antonio Toso

  4. Vissum-Instituto Oftalmologico de Alicante, University Miguel Hernandez, Alicante, Spain

    Jorge L. Alio

  5. School of Health Professions, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Phillip J. Buckhurst

  6. St. Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

    Björn Johansson

Authors
  1. H. Burkhard Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gilles Lesieur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simonetta Morselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio Toso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jorge L. Alio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Phillip J. Buckhurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Björn Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm that they have made a significant contribution to this study and have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Burkhard Dick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dick, H.B., Schultz, T., Lesieur, G. et al. Evaluation of clinical outcomes following implantation of a sub-2-mm hydrophilic acrylic MICS intraocular lens. Int Ophthalmol 39, 1043–1054 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0905-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0905-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation