Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models

Purpose. Evaluation and refractive results comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 (Reper­NN, Russia) IOL implantation with foreign models. Material and methods. The study included 816 patients (816 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation, divided into four groups depending on IOL...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: D. F. Belov, V. P. Nikolaenko, V. V. Kovaleva
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Ophthalmology Publishing Group 2024-06-01
Series:Oftalʹmologiâ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.ophthalmojournal.com/opht/article/view/2359
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849687522762817536
author D. F. Belov
V. P. Nikolaenko
V. V. Kovaleva
author_facet D. F. Belov
V. P. Nikolaenko
V. V. Kovaleva
author_sort D. F. Belov
collection DOAJ
description Purpose. Evaluation and refractive results comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 (Reper­NN, Russia) IOL implantation with foreign models. Material and methods. The study included 816 patients (816 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation, divided into four groups depending on IOL model: MIOL­-SOFT-2-­13 (Reper­-NN, Russia) (n = 199); SA60AT (Alcon, USA) (n = 237); Adapt AO (Bausch&Lomb, USA) (n = 179); Acryfold 601 (Appasamy Associates, India) (n = 201). All patients underwent optical biometry using IOL­-Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Germany). A month after PE spherical equivalent of refraction was assessed by Topcon­8800 (Japan). Mean calculation error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used as a IOL calculation accuracy criterion. Results. Zeroing of ME allowed to determine real a­constant of MIOL-­SOFT­-2-­13 (119.83 instead of 118.4 declared by the manufacturer). MAE in the groups was: 0.39 ± 0.27, 0.33 ± 0.35, 0.38 ± 0.31 and 0.38 ± 0.30 D, respectively (p = 0.068). All IOLs demonstrated hitting the target refraction within ±1.00 D in more than 95 % of cases. Conclusion. MIOL­-SOFT­-2­-13 has comparable refractive results with other monofocal IOLs used in national medical insurance system. MIOL­-SOFT-­2­-13 achieves target refraction within ±1.00 D in 98 % of cases.To obtain optimal refractive results, an optimized a­constant of 118.83 is required.
format Article
id doaj-art-7cfbd48ffe4f4e94855dea645ba147d9
institution DOAJ
issn 1816-5095
2500-0845
language Russian
publishDate 2024-06-01
publisher Ophthalmology Publishing Group
record_format Article
series Oftalʹmologiâ
spelling doaj-art-7cfbd48ffe4f4e94855dea645ba147d92025-08-20T03:22:18ZrusOphthalmology Publishing GroupOftalʹmologiâ1816-50952500-08452024-06-0121228929510.18008/1816-5095-2024-2-289-2951141Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign ModelsD. F. Belov0V. P. Nikolaenko1V. V. Kovaleva2Saint‑Petersburg Multifield Hospital No. 2; Saint Petersburg State UniversitySaint‑Petersburg Multifield Hospital No. 2; Saint Petersburg State UniversitySaint Petersburg State UniversityPurpose. Evaluation and refractive results comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 (Reper­NN, Russia) IOL implantation with foreign models. Material and methods. The study included 816 patients (816 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation, divided into four groups depending on IOL model: MIOL­-SOFT-2-­13 (Reper­-NN, Russia) (n = 199); SA60AT (Alcon, USA) (n = 237); Adapt AO (Bausch&Lomb, USA) (n = 179); Acryfold 601 (Appasamy Associates, India) (n = 201). All patients underwent optical biometry using IOL­-Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Germany). A month after PE spherical equivalent of refraction was assessed by Topcon­8800 (Japan). Mean calculation error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) were used as a IOL calculation accuracy criterion. Results. Zeroing of ME allowed to determine real a­constant of MIOL-­SOFT­-2-­13 (119.83 instead of 118.4 declared by the manufacturer). MAE in the groups was: 0.39 ± 0.27, 0.33 ± 0.35, 0.38 ± 0.31 and 0.38 ± 0.30 D, respectively (p = 0.068). All IOLs demonstrated hitting the target refraction within ±1.00 D in more than 95 % of cases. Conclusion. MIOL­-SOFT­-2­-13 has comparable refractive results with other monofocal IOLs used in national medical insurance system. MIOL­-SOFT-­2­-13 achieves target refraction within ±1.00 D in 98 % of cases.To obtain optimal refractive results, an optimized a­constant of 118.83 is required.https://www.ophthalmojournal.com/opht/article/view/2359phacoemulsificationintraocular lens, iol calculationreper­-nnbiometryiol calculation formulaa­constant
spellingShingle D. F. Belov
V. P. Nikolaenko
V. V. Kovaleva
Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
Oftalʹmologiâ
phacoemulsification
intraocular lens, iol calculation
reper­-nn
biometry
iol calculation formula
a­constant
title Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
title_full Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
title_fullStr Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
title_short Evaluation and Refractive Results Comparison of MIOL-­SOFT-­2­-13 IOL Implantation with Foreign Models
title_sort evaluation and refractive results comparison of miol soft 2 13 iol implantation with foreign models
topic phacoemulsification
intraocular lens, iol calculation
reper­-nn
biometry
iol calculation formula
a­constant
url https://www.ophthalmojournal.com/opht/article/view/2359
work_keys_str_mv AT dfbelov evaluationandrefractiveresultscomparisonofmiolsoft213iolimplantationwithforeignmodels
AT vpnikolaenko evaluationandrefractiveresultscomparisonofmiolsoft213iolimplantationwithforeignmodels
AT vvkovaleva evaluationandrefractiveresultscomparisonofmiolsoft213iolimplantationwithforeignmodels