Abstract:

The aim of this study is to compare 4 different IOLs according to the difference between the predicted and postoperative refraction. Fifty eyes of 37 patients implanted with AcrySof® (Group 1); 55 eyes of 39 patients with Acryflex® (Group 2); 35 eyes of 24 patients with Corneal® (Group 3) and 24 eyes of 17 patients with Cee-On® (Group 4) between 2000 and 2001 were enrolled into the study. For all the patients the biometric measurements and calculations were done by using the same biometry device and SRK-2 or SRK-T formulas depending on axiel length were used. The 4 different IOLs were compared according to the absolute and real error between the predicted and postoperative refractive state. The mean absolute errors in AcrySof®, Acryflex®, Corneal® and Cee-On® groups were 0.52±0.39, 0.73±0.53, 0.87±0.94, 1.02±0.84 respectively and the mean real errors were 0.28±0.59, 0.43±0.80, - 0.53±1.17, - 0.90±0.97 in the same order. Only the mean absolute errors between AcrySof® and the other IOLs were statistically significant. There was no significant differerence between AcrySof®-Acryflex® and Corneal®-Cee-On® according to the real error, but other combinations of comparison turned out to be significantly different. AcrySof® is found to be superior to the other IOLs according to the absolute and real error. While Acryflex® turned out to be the second most predictable IOL, Corneal® and Cee-on® had the least reliable results.

Keywords: