Clinical aement of long-term afety and efficacy of a widely implanted polyacrylic intraocular len material

PURPOE: To evaluate the long-term afety and efficacy, in a large erie of patient, of polyacrylic intraocular len implant 1 and 3 year after urgery, compared with polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len implant. METHOD: Thi wa a randomized, propective tudy of 1,514 eye of 1,202 patient that were examined for a 1-year follow-up tudy and 1,264 eye of 990 patient that were examined for a 3-year follow-up tudy. All the patient were propectively randomized to receive a polyacrylic or polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len implant. A tandardized urgical protocol wa performed uing a phacoemulification technique and capulorhexi. Any urgical complication were excluded, and all patient had tandard potoperative medication and follow-up. Potoperative meaurement included pectacle-corrected viual acuity, occurrence of potoperative ight-threatening or len-related complication, and advere reaction. Reult were compared between the polyacrylic intraocular len and polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group. Reult were alo compared with tandard for polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len that were etablihed by the U Food and Drug Adminitration and a previou tudy for ilicone len. REULT: The overall complete follow-up rate were 79.9% for 1-year follow-up and 69.5% for 3-year follow-up. At 1 year, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of reolution (logMAR) of viual acuity wa 0.037 ± 0.150 and 0.042 ± 0.154 in bet cae patient of the polyacrylic intraocular len group and polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group, repectively. At 3 year, the mean logMAR viual acuity wa 0.038 ± 0.155 and 0.054 ± 0.181 in bet cae patient in the polyacrylic intraocular len group and polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group. There wa no ignificant difference between group at 1 and 3 year. At 1 year, 96.8% of bet cae patient in the polyacrylic intraocular len group and 95.8% of thoe in the polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group achieved corrected viual acuity of 0.5 or better. At 3 year, 96.4% of bet cae patient in the polyacrylic intraocular len group and 94.9% of thoe in the polymethylmethacrylate group achieved a corrected viual acuity of 0.5 or better; no ignificant difference wa found at 1 and 3 year. The rate of ight-threatening complication wa 1.2% for the polyacrylic intraocular len group of all patient and 1.5% for the polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group at 1 year, and 1.6% for the polyacrylic intraocular len group and 1.4% for the polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group at 3 year. No ignificant difference wa found between the group. The cumulative rate of Nd:YAG capulotomy for the polyacrylic intraocular len group (7.1%) wa ignificantly lower than that for the polymethylmethacrylate intraocular len group (38.1%) through 3 year (P < .0001). CONCLUION: Polyacrylic intraocular lene demontrated afe and effective performance through long-term follow-up at a level equal to or better than polymethylmethacrylate intraocular lene. Patient undergoing polyacrylic intraocular len implantation achieved excellent potoperative viual acuity and experienced a low rate of potoperative complication, advere reaction, and Nd:YAG capulotomy. Thee long-term clinical reult are an important outcome databae for the ongoing ue of thi foldable optic material