Comparison of Anatomical and Functional Outcomes of Viscoimplantation and Hydroimplantation Techniques in Foldable Intraocular Lens Implantation

Year 2023, , 440 - 443, 31.12.2023

Ömer Özer , Emin Serbülent Güçlü

https://doi.org/10.36516/jocass.1319359

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the anatomical and functional results of viscoimplantation and hydroimplantation techniques in monofocal foldable intraocular lens implantation.
Materials and Methods: The study included 387 patients older than 50 years who underwent surgery for senile cataract. They were divided into two subgroups as hydroimplantation (group 1) and viscoimplantation (group 2).
Results: The mean implantation time was 397.5±44.3 s in group 1 and 580±105.1 s in group 2. During the follow-up period (12 months), 4 (2.1%) patients in group 1 and 28 (14.6%) patients in group 2 developed posterior capsular opacification. The implantation time was shorter and the rate of posterior capsular opacification was lower in group 1 compared to group 2 (p<0.001). Intraocular pressure measurements were 16.5±2.87 mmHg in group 1 and 20.3±2.9 mmHg in group 2 at the first hour after surgery. At the twenty-fourth hour, the mean intraocular pressure was 14.1±1.3 mmHg in group 1 and 17.5±1.8 mmHg in group 2. This difference between the groups was statistically significant (p=0.011 and p<0.001, respectively).
Conclusion: In the hydroimplantation technique, the changes in anterior segment parameters between the preoperative and postoperative period are very small. It causes less intraocular pressure elevation. Therefore, hydroimplantation is a cost-effective, safe and effective method for monofocal foldable intraocular lens implantation in uncomplicated cataract surgeries.

Keywords

Cataract, Hydroimplantation, Intraocular Lens, Viscoimplantation

Katlanabilir Göz İçi Lens İmplantasyonunda Viskoimplantasyon ve Hidroimplantasyon Tekniklerinin Anatomik ve Fonksiyonel Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Giriş: Katlanabilir göz içi lens implantasyonunda viskoimplantasyon ve hidro-implantasyon tekniklerinin anatomik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarının karşılaştırılmasıdır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya senil katarakt nedeniyle opere edilmiş, 50 yaşından büyük 387 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hidroimplantasyon (grup 1) ve viskoimplantasyon (grup 2) olarak iki alt gruba ayrılmıştır.
Bulgular: İmplantasyon süresi grup 1’de ortalama 397,5 ± 44,3 sn, grup 2’de 580 ± 105,1 sn’dir. Takip süresi boyunca (12 ay) grup 1’deki hastaların 4’ünde (2,1%), grup 2’deki hastaların 28’inde (14,6%) arka kapsül kesafeti gelişmiştir. Grup 1’de grup 2’ye göre implantasyon süresi kısa ve arka kapsül kesafeti gelişme oranı düşüktür (p < 0,001). Göz içi basınç ölçümleri 1.saatte grup 1’de ortalama 16,5 ± 2,87 mm Hg grup 2’de 20,3 ± 2,9 mm Hg’dir. Yirmi dördüncü saatte grup 1’de ortalama 14,1 ± 1,3 mm Hg grup 2’de 17,5 ± 1,8 mm Hg’dir. Gruplar arasında tespit edilen bu farklılık istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (sırasıyla p=0,011 ve p<0,001)
Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, hidroimplantasyon, maliyet olarak ucuz, güvenli ve etkili bir yöntemdir. Cerrahi öncesi ve sonrası dönem arasında ön segment parametrelerinin değişimleri oldukça azdır. Daha az göz içi basınç yükselmesine neden olur ve implantasyona bağlı arka kapsül kesafeti de nadirdir.

Keywords

Hidroimplantasyon, Göz içi Lens, Katarakt, Viskoimplantasyon

References

• 1. Holzer MP, Tetz MR, Auffarth GU, et al. Effect of Healon 5 and 4 other viscoelastic substances on intraocular pressure and endothelium after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001 Feb;27(2):213-8.
• 2. Davis EA, Lindstrom RL. Corneal thickness and visual acuity after phacoemulsification with 3 viscoelastic materials. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Oct;26(10):1505-9.
• 3. Arshinoff SA, Albiani DA, Taylor-Laporte J. Intraocular pressure after bilateral cataract surgery using Healon, Healon 5, and Healon GV. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Apr;28(4):617-25.
• 4. Arshinoff SA, Hofman I. Prospective, randomized trial comparing Micro Visc Plus and Healon GV in routine phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998 Jun;24(6):814-20. 5. Miller KM, Colvard DM. Randomized clinical comparison of Healon GV and Viscoat. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Dec;25(12):1630-6.
• 6. Oshika T, Bissen-Miyajima H, Fujita Y, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of DisCoVisc and Healon 5 in phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. Eye (Lond). 2010 Aug;24(8):1376-81.
• 7. Rainer G, Menapace R, Findl O, et al. Intraocular pressure after small incision cataract surgery with Healon 5 and Viscoat. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Feb;26(2):271-6.
• 8. Rainer G, Menapace R, Findl O, et al. Intraocular pressure rise after small incision cataract surgery: a randomised intraindividual comparison of two dispersive viscoelastic agents. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Feb;85(2):139-42.
• 9. Rainer G, Menapace R, Schmid KE, et al. Natural course of intraocular pressure after cataract surgery with sodium chondroitin sulfate 4%-sodium hyaluronate 3% (Viscoat). Ophthalmology. 2005 Oct;112(10):1714-8.
• 10. Rainer G, Schmid KE, Findl O, et al. Natural course of intraocular pressure after cataract surgery with sodium hyaluronate 1% versus hydroxypropylmethylcellulose 2%. Ophthalmology. 2007 Jun;114(6):1089-93.
• 11. Oğurel T, Oğurel R, Gökçınar NB, et al. Comparison of the Neodymium-doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Capsulotomy Rate with Viscoimplantation and the Hydroimplantation Intraocular Lens Technique. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun;33(3):222-227.
• 12. Tak H. Hydroimplantation: foldable intraocular lens implantation without an ophthalmic viscosurgical device. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Mar;36(3):377-9.
• 13. Studeny P, Hyndrak M, Kacerovsky M, et al. Safety of hydroimplantation: a foldable intraocular lens implantation without the use of an ophthalmic viscosurgical device. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2014 Nov-Dec;24(6):850-6.
• 14. Oğurel T, Oğurel R, Onaran Z, et al. Safety of hydroimplantation in cataract surgery in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017 May 18;10(5):723-727.
• 15. Ozates S, Koc M, Uzel MM, et al. Comparison of Intraocular Lens Position Change Following Two Different Implantation Techniques. Curr Eye Res. 2017 Sep;42(9):1235-1239.
• 16. Wright M, Chawla H, Adams A. Results of small incision extracapsular cataract surgery using the anterior chamber maintainer without viscoelastic. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Jan;83(1):71-5.
• 17. Özcura F, Çevik S. Hydroimplantation versus viscoimplantation: comparison of intraocular lens implantation with and without ophthalmic viscoelastic device in phacoemulsification. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct-Dec;62(4):282-287.
• 18. Chen Y, Cao Q, Xue C, et al. Comparison of two techniques for toric intraocular lens implantation: hydroimplantation versus ophthalmic viscosurgical devices. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 24;18(1):109.