Effect of AcrySof versus other intraocular lens properties on the risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy after cataract surgery: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2018
accepted:
09
07
2019
entrez:
20
8
2019
pubmed:
20
8
2019
medline:
4
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of different intraocular lens materials (IOL) and optic edge designs on the incidence of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting incidence of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in patients with monofocal IOLs were identified for systematic literature review (SLR) using Cochrane methodology. A network meta-analysis was conducted under a Bayesian framework. Mean hazard ratios (HRs), 95% credible intervals, and one-sided p-values were estimated for Nd:YAG capsulotomy incidence by comparing AcrySof IOLs with a group of non-AcrySof hydrophobic acrylic, hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, and PMMA IOLs. Sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy between sharp- and round-edged designs of the above IOLs. AcrySof IOLs had a lower risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy compared to hydrophobic acrylic (HR: 2.68; 95% CrI: 1.41, 4.77; p < 0.01), hydrophilic acrylic (HR: 7.54; 95% CrI: 4.24, 14.06; p < 0.001), PMMA (HR: 3.64, 95% CrI: 1.87, 6.33; p < 0.001), and silicone (HR: 1.13; 95% CrI: 0.59, 1.91; p <0.1) IOLs. The risk for Nd:YAG was highest among sharp-edged IOLs for hydrophilic acrylic IOLs (HR: 9.32; 95% CrI: 4.32, 19.29; p < 0.01), followed by other hydrophobic acrylic (HR: 2.91; 95% CrI: 1.27, 5.88; p < 0.01), silicone (HR: 0.838; 95% CrI: 0.328, 1.74; p = 0.69), and PMMA (HR: 0.39; 95% CrI: 0.042, 1.49; p = 0.93) IOLs, compared to AcrySof. Acrysof IOLs had a lower risk of Nd:YAG compared to PMMA (HR: 3.25; 95% CrI: 1.21, 7.37; p < 0.01) and silicone, round edge IOLs (HR: 3.84; 95% CrI: 1.08, 10.64; p = 0.015). The risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy is lower in eyes implanted with AcrySof IOLs compared to non-AcrySof hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOLs. Sharp-edged AcrySof, PMMA, and silicone IOLs are comparable in terms of reducing the risk of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31425548
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220498
pii: PONE-D-18-11719
pmc: PMC6699683
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0220498Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FE, CPV, JdH and DOB are employees of Alcon Vision LLC; SS and SG are employees of Novartis Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, India the marketing authorization holder of AcrySof IOLs. HT is an employee of University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom and received a consulting fee for his work on the network meta analysis reported in this paper The authors declare no other conflicting interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;11(4):319-29
pubmed: 15512993
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Jan;40(1):70-6
pubmed: 24238943
Acta Ophthalmol. 2008 Aug;86(5):533-6
pubmed: 18081899
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Sep;34(9):1489-94
pubmed: 18721708
Trials. 2017 Sep 13;18(1):427
pubmed: 28903769
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Jun;38(6):1086-93
pubmed: 22541829
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Oct;30(10):2064-71
pubmed: 15474815
Ophthalmology. 2017 Mar;124(3):295-302
pubmed: 28065436
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 May;31(5):954-61
pubmed: 15975461
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
pubmed: 9250266
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 16;8:CD012516
pubmed: 34398965
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Apr;31(4):718-24
pubmed: 15899448
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Apr;127(4):555-62
pubmed: 19365040
Coll Antropol. 2007 Jan;31 Suppl 1:57-60
pubmed: 17469752
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997 Dec;23(10):1539-42
pubmed: 9456413
Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Sep;130(3):310-21
pubmed: 11020410
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):429-37
pubmed: 21669367
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28
pubmed: 21669366
Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 Oct;86(10):1181-6
pubmed: 12234903
Stat Med. 2007 Sep 10;26(20):3681-99
pubmed: 17285571
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998 Mar;24(3):367-70
pubmed: 9559473
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Aug;29(8):1546-50
pubmed: 12954303
Ophthalmology. 2008 May;115(5):830-8
pubmed: 17964657
BMJ. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):226-31
pubmed: 11159626
BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900
pubmed: 16223826
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Jan;26(1):56-61
pubmed: 10646147
Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30;23(20):3105-24
pubmed: 15449338
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 May;25(5):659-62
pubmed: 10330641
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 05;8(11):e77864
pubmed: 24223736
Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Aug;156(2):375-381.e2
pubmed: 23677137
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000 Feb;26(2):188-97
pubmed: 10683786
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar 10;27(2):164-168
pubmed: 27445063
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 May;41(5):956-63
pubmed: 26049830
Eye (Lond). 1999 Jun;13 ( Pt 3b):449-53
pubmed: 10627823
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Nov;25(11):1486-91
pubmed: 10569163
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 03;8(10):e76654
pubmed: 24098547
Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar;143(3):428-36
pubmed: 17224119
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Mar;35(3):556-66
pubmed: 19251151
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(44):e8301
pubmed: 29095259