A clinical comparion of ingle-piece and three-piece truncated hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lene

Purpoe To determine the clinical difference between three-piece (3P) and ingle-piece (P) truncated hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lene (IOL). Deign Retropective cohort clinical tudy. Method The etting wa an academic clinical practice. The patient population conited of ubject without confounding comorbidity that could effect central viion with at leat 1-year follow-up after uncomplicated urgical placement of 3P or P IOL in the capular bag and at leat 20/25 bet-corrected potoperative viion documented. Obervation procedure were a follow: logarithm of the minimal angle of reolution (LogMAR) viual acuity (uncorrected and bet corrected), digital retroillumination photograph to acertain poterior capular opacification (PCO), anterior capular opacification (ACO), IOL centration, and refractive tability by comparing thi refraction with the early potoperative refraction. Patient completed a dyphotopia quetionnaire. Main outcome meaure were a follow: LogMAR viual acuity (uncorrected and bet corrected), PCO, ACO, IOL centration, refractive tability, and dyphotopia outcome comparing 3P and P. Reult eventy-five patient were enrolled (36 3P and 39 P). Corrected and uncorrected viual acuity, refractive tability, and IOL centration were imilar. ingle piece truncated hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lene had more PCO (P = .013), le ACO (P = .001), le central flah looking at a peripheral light (P = .044), and le unwanted image to the ide of a light ource (P = .025). Concluion Although imilar in centration and refractive tability, P ha more PCO, le ACO, and le dyphotopia than 3P.