Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited

Chinese Journal of Ophthalmologic Medicine(Electronic Edition) ›› 2018, Vol. 08 ›› Issue (05): 229-234. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2007.2018.05.006

Special Issue:

• Original Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Clinical analysis of intraocular biological measurement changes and intraocular lens design after cataract phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation

HuiFen Ding1,()   

  1. 1. Baotou Central Hospital of Inner Mongeolia ophthalmology, 014040 Baotou, China
  • Received:2018-08-22 Online:2018-10-28 Published:2018-10-28
  • Contact: HuiFen Ding
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Ding HuiFen, Email:

Abstract:

Objective

To investigate the changes of intraocular biometrics and the selection of intraocular lens types after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation.

Methods

A total of 60 cases (60 eyes) who received phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation from February 2016 to February 2018 in the Ophthalmology Department of Baotou Central Hospital of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region were studied. There were 33 males (33 eyes) and 27 females (27 eyes). The age ranged from 42 to 78 years, with an average of (60.8±10.2) years. According to the type of intraocular lens selected during surgery, all the cases included in this study were divided into two groups: Bigbag intraocular lens group and ReSTOR intraocular lens group. The visual acuity, the best corrected visual acuity, the distance from posterior capsule to retina, the length of eye axis, the depth of anterior chamber and intraocular pressure were examined before and after operation. Use (±s) to express. Bigbag intraocular lens group and ReSTOR intraocular lens group were compared by t test and paired t test.

Results

There were no significant differences in age, sex, type of onset, lens nucleus hardness and complications between the two groups (t=1.89, χ2=1.32, 0.86, 0.76, 0.45; P>0.05). There was no significant difference in naked vision, best corrected vision, distance from posterior capsule to retina, axial length and intraocular pressure between the two groups before treatment (t=0.683, 0.432, 0.963, 0.862, 0.634; P>0.05). There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure between the two groups (t=0.031, 0.079, 0.091, 0.29; P>0.05). After treatment, the naked eye vision of the two groups was significantly improved compared with that before treatment (t=21.779, 13.326; P<0.05). After treatment, the naked eye vision of Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly higher than that of ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=5.136, P<0.05). The best corrected visual acuity of the two groups after treatment was significantly higher than that before treatment (t=13.689, 9.683; P<0.05). After treatment, the best corrected visual acuity of Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly higher than that of ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=3.679, P<0.05). After treatment, the distance from posterior capsule to retina was significantly increased compared with that before treatment (t=19.689, 12.683; P<0.05). After treatment, the distance from posterior capsule to retina in Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly higher than that in ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=2.924, P<0.05). The difference of naked vision, best corrected visual acuity, posterior capsular to retina distance between Bigbag intraocular lens group and ReSTOR intraocular lens group before and after surgery was significantly smaller than that of ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=35.45, 27.25, 2.05; P<0.05). After treatment, compared with before treatment, the axial length of the two groups was significantly increased (t=15.249, 7.358; P<0.05). Axis length in Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly longer than that in ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=13.982, P<0.05). After treatment, the anterior chamber depth of the two groups was significantly deeper than before treatment (t=16.489, 8.0951; P<0.05). The anterior chamber depth of Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly deeper than that of ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=12.97, P<0.05). The difference of axial length and anterior chamber depth before and after operation in Bigbag intraocular lens group was significantly greater than that in ReSTOR intraocular lens group (t=8.45, 16.49; P<0.05).

Conclusions

After phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation, the intraocular biometric parameters such as naked eye vision, best corrected visual acuity, distance from posterior capsule to retina, axial length and anterior chamber depth changed, but intraocular pressure did not change significantly. Bigbag intraocular lens implantation in phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation has more advantages than ReSTOR intraocular lens implantation.

Key words: Cataract phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation, Intraocular biological measurement index, Intraocular lens

Copyright © Chinese Journal of Ophthalmologic Medicine(Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 0086-10-58269646 E-mail: zhykyxzz@163.com
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd