Title | ACRI.TEC ACRI.SMART 36A vs PHYSIOL MICRO AY implantation in bimanual MICS |
Abstract Nr. | 258 |
Purpose | To assess the visual results, contrast sensitivity and optical aberrations in patients that underwent Bimanual Micro Incision Cataract Surgery (MICS) through a 1.4 mm incision with implantation through a 1.9 mm incision in one eye of the aspherical Acritec Acrismart 36A IOL and in the other eye of the aspheric Physiol Micro AY IOL. |
Methods | In a prospective randomised study 30 cataract patients underwent implantation with either the Acritec Acrismart 36A IOL or the Physiol Micro AY IOL. The Acri.Smart 36A IOL has a plate haptic design, the Micro AY has 4 haptics to stabilize the optic in the capsular bag. Both lenses have aspherical characteristics. The per-operative complication rate was recorded. At 2 months the BCVA and the post-operative refraction were recorded, the contrast sensitivity in mesopic and photopic conditions was measured and visual function analysis using the ray tracing system (Tracey) was performed. A subjective evaluation by the patient was also done. |
Results | Even if the Micro AY was slightly easier to implant, in 2 cases a haptics was damaged during insertion without any effect on the positioning of the IOL in the capsular bag. In one eye the insertion of the Acri.Smart resulted in a slight damage to the optic of the IOL. None of these minor complications had a visual impact. Two months after surgery, the visual acuity was similar for both eyes in both groups. Contrast sensitivity measurements and ray tracing analysis showed no manifest differences. |
Conclusion | Bimanual Micro Incision Cataract Surgery with implantation of the Acritec Acrismart 36A and the Physiol Micro AY IOL resulted in good surgical outcomes with identical optical performances. |
Last name | BOUZEKRI ALAMI |
Initials | R |
Department | Clinique St-Jean |
City | Brussels |
Last name | VRYGHEM |
Initials | JC |
Department | Brussels Eye Doctors |
City | Brussels |