Comparison of clinical efficacy: Nd:YAG laser rates after implantation of AcrySof® SN60WF, Akreos® AO-MI60 and Hoya® YA-60BB.

OBJECTIVE

To compare Nd:YAG laser rates following implantation of AcrySof(®) SN60WF (Alcon), Akreos(®) AO-MI60 (Baush & Lomb), and Hoya(®) YA-60BB (Hoya) intraocular lenses.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at three French centers with each implanting at least two of the three implants. Included patients had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery with at least 3 years of follow-up. Records of patients implanted with one of the three IOL's were drawn randomly from the surgical logs. Postoperative data were obtained from the medical records of either the surgeon or the referring physician. Time elapsing until Nd:YAG laser was analysed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

Three hundred eyes were implanted (AcrySof(®) 126, Akreos(®) 89, and Hoya(®) 85). AcrySof(®) recipients were the youngest (AcrySof(®) 72.1, Akreos(®) 76.4, and Hoya(®) 75.2 years of age: P=0.0007). The sex ratio was 4:6 male:female. Follow-up was longest for Hoya eyes (AcrySof(®) 29.4, Akreos(®) 24.6 and Hoya(®) 34.6 months; P=0.0002). Eyes implanted with AcrySof(®) had 1.74 times less chance of Nd:YAG laser treatment than Hoya eyes (P=0.0327) and 3.50 times less than Akreos(®) eyes (P<0.0001). The results remained unchanged when the analysis was restricted to events in the first 24 months (Risk Ratios: Hoya(®)=2.64: P=0.02; and Akreos(®)=4.22: P=0.0001). Adjustment on unbalanced confounding variables did not alter the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Eyes with AcrySof(®) implants required significantly fewer Nd:YAG laser capsulotomies than those with Hoya(®) and Akreos(®) implants and were therefore less subject to Nd:YAG laser treatment complications, thus ensuring better vision at the lowest cost.