ライフサイエンスコーパス: IOL

1 IOL decentration at 5 years was equally prevalent in PEX

2 IOL misalignment (decentration, tilt, rotation) and pupi

3 IOL misalignment resulted in larger wRMS variations in t

4 IOL power selection is a major challenge of pediatric ca

5 IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse per

6 IOL type or timing of placement do not impact final VA.

7 ) options in recent years, with close to 100 IOLs on the market in 2020.

8 There were 20 IOLs that sustained a postoperative fracture and 5 IOLs

9 implantation of the monofocal CT ASPHINA 409 IOL was beneficial to restore vision in eyes with or wit

10 ication and implantation of a CT ASPHINA 409 IOL.

11 ompare predicted refractive outcomes among 5 IOL power calculation formulas.

12 hat sustained a postoperative fracture and 5 IOLs that sustained an intraoperative fracture.

13 urgery with insertion of an Alcon SN6AT(2-9) IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX) from 1 sur

14 g tested to achieve-finally-an accommodative IOL.

15 X, neither IOL choice (1- vs 3-piece acrylic IOL) nor the presence/absence of a capsule tension ring

16 lareon (p = 0.01, 14.8 days) and the AcrySof IOL (p = 0.005, 15.7 days) showed a slower PCO developme

17 eye of the same donor receiving the AcrySof IOL (SN60WF) following phacoemulsification cataract surg

18 n of PCO between the Clareon vs. the AcrySof IOL in human capsular bags.

19 The Acrysof IOL showed the least amount of absolute rotation compare

20 Visual axis opacification is common after IOL implantation in early childhood.

21 in the United States at this time, although IOLs modified with a round anterior edge and square post

22 assessed visual outcome of eyes that had an IOL exchange.

23 for the surgeon to assess and factor into an IOL recommendation.

24 Not an IOL itself, but rather a high-tech innovation that so fa

25 % and was associated only with the use of an IOL (odds ratio, 6.10; P = 0.005).

26 dified, simple way of scleral fixation of an IOL decreases the duration of surgery with minimal compl

27 The use of an IOL increases the risk of VAO irrespective of age at sur

28 the surgeon to customize the selection of an IOL power at implantation and also to help the parents u

29 went combined PPV and scleral fixation of an IOL with Gore-Tex suture were identified.

30 tients with age-related cataract received an IOL Acrysof SN60WF, Tecnis ZCB00, or Envista MX60 in a c

31 er different spectral conditions by using an IOL metrology device.

32 ctive iris prosthesis in combination with an IOL having functionally and cosmetically exceptional rec

33 and aphakic eyes for ArtificialIris (AI) and IOL reconstruction.

34 neal astigmatism, toric IOLs, alignment, and IOL calculation.

35 our best efforts to enhance measurements and IOL calculations, refractive surprises still occur.

36 ients, who underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation between January 2009 and July 2016, wer

37 stoperative periods, phacoemulsification and IOL implantation surgery can be safe and effective in ey

38 p analyses based on sclerotomy placement and IOL models were performed.

39 ogistic regression found corneal profile and IOL type to be determinants of extended DOF with monofoc

40 refraction (I/R), surface reflectivity, and IOL optic design are additional causative factors for PD

41 howed a significant effect on refraction and IOL power predictions for all formulas and lenses (P < .

42 six factors regarding surgical technique and IOL choice described in this article, we strongly believ

43 Surgical tools and IOLs are now available to bring these rates down to sing

44 e understood fully to choose the appropriate IOL for each individual, and surgery has to be customize

45 Aspheric IOLs are designed to eliminate the positive spherical ab

46 Many recently available IOLs are awaiting formal results, but the methods by whi

47 dicted target refraction based on in-the-bag IOL calculations.

48 d IOL implantation, assumption of in-the-bag IOL position when calculating lens power leads to accept

49 ted invariably with well-centered in-the-bag IOLs.

50 No significant difference was found between IOL models.

51 and induced astigmatism were similar between IOL models.

52 underwent cataract surgery, the use of a BLF IOL resulted in no apparent advantage over a non-BLF IOL

53 is of macular degeneration, the use of a BLF IOL was not predictive of nAMD development (hazard ratio

54 BLF IOL group, 55.2 +/- 34.1 months; non-BLF IOL group, 50.5 +/- 30.1 months; P < 0.001), 164 cases o

55 lted in no apparent advantage over a non-BLF IOL in the incidence of nAMD or its progression, nor in

56 s used in 5425 eyes (47.6%), and the non-BLF IOL was used in 5972 eyes (52.4%).

57 The BLF IOL was used in 5425 eyes (47.6%), and the non-BLF IOL w

58 During follow-up (BLF IOL group, 55.2 +/- 34.1 months; non-BLF IOL group, 50.5

59 /- 2.4 weeks; P = 0.271) for BLF and non-BLF IOLs, respectively.

60 ived BLF IOLs and those who received non-BLF IOLs.

61 re-existing nAMD to assess the effect of BLF IOLs on nAMD progression.

62 e compared between patients who received BLF IOLs and those who received non-BLF IOLs.

63 h follow-up were evaluated: anterior chamber IOL (ACIOL), iris-claw IOL, retropupillary iris-claw IOL

64 Non-anterior chamber IOL techniques were less likely to report chronic uveiti

65 polypropylene iris-sutured posterior chamber IOL (PCIOL), 10-0 polypropylene scleral-sutured PCIOL, 8

66 The new Clareon IOL did not show any disadvantages in terms of days unti

67 e by retropupillary fixation of an iris claw IOL (n = 50).

68 OL), iris-claw IOL, retropupillary iris-claw IOL, 10-0 polypropylene iris-sutured posterior chamber I

69 ted: anterior chamber IOL (ACIOL), iris-claw IOL, retropupillary iris-claw IOL, 10-0 polypropylene ir

70 with nonsutured methods: ACIOL, iris-clipped IOL, and ISHF PCIOL.

71 INFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks

72 redicted refractive outcome with 5 different IOL formulas.

73 Different IOLs are made available to surgeons each year, including

74 cular implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL in presbyopic emmetropic patients is more successful

75 Cases included a dislocated IOL and an absent posterior capsule or subluxated catara

76 ffected by this complication, but dislocated IOLs may cause a relatively large public health care bur

77 serovars D (UW-3/Cx), D (UCI-96/Cx), and E (IOL-43) but not F (N.I.1).

78 with serovars D (UW-3/Cx), D (UCI-96/Cx), E (IOL-43), or F (N.I.1).

79 a computerized trend or "timeline" for each IOL style.

80 However, no one single multifocal or EDOF IOL suits all patients' needs.

81 The wide variety of multifocal and EDOF IOLs, their optics, and their respective impact on patie

82 ctive eyes implanted with multifocal or EDOF IOLs; however, corneal topographic enrollment criteria w

83 ultifocal, or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in these eyes.

84 ocal IOLs and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs.

85 tended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF-IOL).

86 e difference in Nd:YAG rates among the eight IOL designs was found to be significant (P < 0.0001, chi

87 plantation of an Acrysof, Tecnis, or Envista IOL randomized to the 0 +/- 10, 45 +/- 10, 90 +/- 10, or

88 otation compared with the Tecnis and Envista IOLs.

89 E) followed by an implantation of FineVision IOL (PhysIOL).

90 n ELP was significant between rhexis-fixated IOL and both plate-haptic (P = .001) and c-loop haptic I

91 For the rhexis-fixated IOL the differences in refraction ranged from -0.039 dio

92 ELP for rhexis-fixated IOL was shortest (4.29 +/- 0.24 mm), followed by c-loop

93 ic, c-loop haptic, or a novel rhexis-fixated IOL.

94 Extended depth-of-focus IOLs have been introduced, as has the technology of the

95 No round-edged foldable IOLs are available in the United States at this time, al

96 foldable versus rigid designs, the foldable IOLs were associated with a much lower Nd:YAG laser post

97 For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accura

98 they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks.

99 embrane, require specific considerations for IOL selection.

100 y scleral suturing (n = 54) or one group for IOL exchange by retropupillary fixation of an iris claw

101 ients (104 eyes) were assigned one group for IOL repositioning by scleral suturing (n = 54) or one gr

102 ce of, and indications and risk factors for, IOL exchange after cataract surgery.

103 The aberration-free IOL group showed significantly better DCNVA and higher t

104 n normal eyes implanted with aberration-free IOLs.

105 ic femto-LASIK eyes received aberration-free IOLs.

106 Custom freeform IOL-optics-design may become a promising option for the

107 g formula accuracy, including the new Haigis IOL Formula Performance Index.

108 th plate-haptic (P = .001) and c-loop haptic IOL (P = .000).

109 donors were used, with the novel hydrophobic IOL (Clareon, CNA0T0) being implanted in one eye and the

110 f altering the power of an already implanted IOL are under development.

111 his cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection?

112 The difference in IOL fixation and its resulting position in the capsular

113 t did not affect VA outcome or AE incidence, IOL placement increased the risk of visual axis opacific

114 The main outcome measures included IOL decentration and PCO.

115 (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will impro

116 aract surgery has evolved, intraocular lens (IOL) complications are rare.

117 We compared rates of intraocular lens (IOL) decentration, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garn

118 t surgery is influenced by intraocular lens (IOL) design and material.

119 f eight rigid and foldable intraocular lens (IOL) designs in a series of 5416 pseudophakic human eyes

120 fractive optic) and phakic intraocular lens (IOL) dysphotopsia were excluded.

121 d by intraoperative use of intraocular lens (IOL) for cataract phacoemulsification.

122 going cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation for senile cataracts.

123 of phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes with uveitis.

124 pacity (VAO) after primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in infancy are necessary.

125 capsular tension ring and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

126 y the influx of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) options in recent years, with close to 100 IOLs on

127 ct surgery with or without intraocular lens (IOL) placement at age 7 to 24 months with 5 years of pos

128 ct surgery with or without intraocular lens (IOL) placement during IATS enrollment years 2004 through

129 ct surgery with or without intraocular lens (IOL) placement during the IATS enrollment years of 2004

130 ed by each formula for the intraocular lens (IOL) power actually implanted.

131 o quantify the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, methods, and instrument

132 Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations are less accurate in eyes that h

133 nfluenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devic

134 es after combined iris and intraocular lens (IOL) repair in aniridia patients.

135 The intraocular lens (IOL) selection process for patients requires a complex a

136 The future of intraocular lens (IOL) technology has already begun with a number of recen

137 A multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) was implanted in 84.3% of eyes; 15.7% of eyes recei

138 eye, contact lens (CL) vs intraocular lens (IOL), visual acuity (VA) outcome, and the need for surge

139 ed diffractive quadrifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

140 ts with misaligned toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) after operative realignment, with and without back

141 Because toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) are available, the current standard of care is to

142 provides an overview of intraocular lenses (IOLs) currently used in cataract surgery.

143 at obtained through real intraocular lenses (IOLs) tested on the same eyes has not been, to our knowl

144 n correction with custom intraocular lenses (IOLs) than normal cataractous eyes despite the effect of

145 ependence of diffractive intraocular lenses (IOLs) was recognized in vitro but not yet assessed in vi

146 Intraocular lenses (IOLs) with plate-haptic, c-loop haptic, and a rhexis-fix

147 to either 1- or 3-piece intraocular lenses (IOLs).

148 quality produced by real multifocal IOLs (M-IOLs) -bifocal refractive and trifocal diffractive- proj

149 and visual performance obtained with real M-IOLs, both in absolute values and in the shape of throug

150 0.42 mm) and plate-haptic (4.51 +/- 0.26 mm) IOL.

151 ted before surgery would receive a monofocal IOL and be referred to a retina specialist for evaluatio

152 of eyes; 15.7% of eyes received a monofocal IOL.

153 lar DCNVA and DCIVA to a spherical monofocal IOL, with comparable monocular BCDVA.

154 underwent phacoemulsification with monofocal IOL implantation.

155 ependence with multifocal IOLs and monofocal IOLs, and the disutility of glasses.

156 vision functionality with aspheric monofocal IOLs.

157 who received either multifocal or monofocal IOLs during cataract surgery.

158 ost-effective strategy compared to monofocal IOLs for patients who desire a higher chance to be spect

159 ost-effective option compared with monofocal IOLs 99.9% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QAL

160 eased cost of $3,415 compared with monofocal IOLs, leading to an ICER of $4,805/QALY from the societa

161 determinants of extended DOF with monofocal IOLs.

162 uation of a patient considering a multifocal IOL added to the costs of the cataract surgery, but the

163 Multifocal IOLs were associated with a 0.71 QALY increase at an inc

164 Toric, EDOF, and multifocal IOLs may provide excellent outcomes in selected cases th

165 listic sensitivity analysis found multifocal IOLs to be the cost-effective option compared with monof

166 blished as well as newly launched multifocal IOLs on the market focuses on multifocal IOLs, including

167 in drivers for the development of multifocal IOLs and extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs.

168 A wide range of multifocal IOLs options are available on the market to surgeons.

169 further evaluate the efficacy of multifocal IOLs.

170 cal IOLs on the market focuses on multifocal IOLs, including extended depth-of-focus lenses.

171 etal and health care perspective, multifocal IOLs would be considered a cost-effective strategy compa

172 d visual quality produced by real multifocal IOLs (M-IOLs) -bifocal refractive and trifocal diffracti

173 lity of spectacle dependence with multifocal IOLs and monofocal IOLs, and the disutility of glasses.

174 A multipiece IOL was used, and the haptics were fixed under the scler

175 ion of either an Akreos A060 or enVista MX60 IOL and were fixated either 2 mm or 3 mm posterior to th

176 ted or subluxed scleral-sutured enVista MX60 IOL.

177 A total of 25 scleral-sutured enVista MX60 IOLs displacements secondary to eyelet fractures in 23 e

178 : Patients with scleral-sutured enVista MX60 IOLs that experienced either an intraoperative or post-o

179 s with relatively uncomplicated PEX, neither IOL choice (1- vs 3-piece acrylic IOL) nor the presence/

180 s evaluated for cIOLs and aberration-neutral IOLs (nIOLs) in a simulated clinical study with 500 virt

181 both ND and PD are of significance, and new IOL designs and alternative surgical strategies may help

182 surement technologies and development of new IOL calculation formulas, further advances are needed to

183 All normal IOL formulas resulted in hyperopic refractive outcomes t

184 story significantly improves the accuracy of IOL calculations in patients undergoing cataract surgery

185 the ultimate goal to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation.

186 Most cases of IOL dislocation are associated with surgical trauma or p

187 to mitigate these unintended side effects of IOL implantation.

188 cohort, the 20-year cumulative incidence of IOL dislocation needing surgical attention was significa

189 design was used to estimate the incidence of IOL exchange and a case-control design to identify facto

190 The incidence of IOL exchange has not been consistently estimated.

191 The incidence of IOL exchange was 2 per 1000 surgeries (95% confidence in

192 e residual lens materials after insertion of IOL and clean of the prolapsed vitreous.

193 the incidence, diagnosis, and management of IOL decentrations, uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndro

194 les that (1) discuss methods and outcomes of IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refr

195 We reviewed the methods and outcomes of IOL power calculations in eyes with previous LASIK, exci

196 t's age, sex, type of IOL, dioptric power of IOL, and operating surgeon's seniority.

197 was subsequently for proper repositioning of IOL.

198 tive outcomes was evaluated with a review of IOL calculators and their use in lens prediction for cat

199 in eyes with uncomplicated PEX, the risks of IOL decentration and PCO were low and comparable to that

200 Corneal profile and type of IOL implanted were the most important factors influencin

201 s, including the patient's age, sex, type of IOL, dioptric power of IOL, and operating surgeon's seni

202 Eight different types of IOL fixation techniques with at least 6-month follow-up

203 Intraoperative use of IOL can improve surgical safety for dense cataract phaco

204 by which we label and compare these types of IOLs must also be standardized.

205 in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection.

206 correctly the results of clinical studies on IOL power calculation and biometry for 2020.

207 e already pseudophakic and considerations on IOLs used in the pediatric population.

208 In this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with

209 00 virtual IOL implantations per eye and per IOL.

210 Use of a 3-piece IOL model (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval

211 cohort study suggest that the use of 3-piece IOL models may reduce the risk of pseudophakic VAO in ch

212 tic capture, sulcus IOL placement, piggyback IOLs, and neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet nasal capsul

213 oduced, as has the technology of the pinhole IOL.

214 capsular biocompatibility, and postoperative IOL opacification.

215 Tools like the ASCRS postrefractive IOL calculator are useful for the clinician by incorpora

216 nd Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) postrefractive IOL calculator incorporates many commonly used methods.

217 High cylinder power IOLs (>=2 D) showed a higher decrease in residual cylind

218 lation was performed than low cylinder power IOLs (<2 D) (27% vs 9%).

219 Especially for high cylinder power IOLs, better refractive outcome can be seen when perform

220 sented participants selected their preferred IOL, which was implanted sequentially into each eye of p

221 This patient presents IOL dislocation following routine exam, suggesting the n

222 Main outcome measures were previous IOL exchange or repositioning surgery, significant IOL d

223 of 11 months (7-23); 68% received a primary IOL.

224 describe the predictors of VAO after primary IOL implantation for unilateral or bilateral congenital

225 perated at < 7 months of age despite primary IOL implantation in most children in the group aged 7 to

226 Forty-two eyes (24%) received primary IOL implantation.

227 tients who underwent diffractive quadrifocal IOL implantation with a follow-up period longer than six

228 The Mini WELL Ready IOL provided good postoperative functional results at fa

229 used to demonstrate performance of the real IOLs, SLM and SimVis technology simulations on bench usi

230 lcifications, or discolorations, may require IOL exchange.

231 Data of reviewed IOLs displayed in tabular format include mean monocular

232 = 30) or negative-spherical aberration (SA) IOLs (n = 61).

233 Seven IOL calculation formulae were evaluated: True K [History

234 change or repositioning surgery, significant IOL dislocation, degree of pseudophakodonesis, and visua

235 reviewed shows no superiority of any single IOL implantation technique in the absence of zonular sup

236 vinex XY1 IOL in 1 eye and an AcrySof SN60WF IOL in the other eye.

237 wer YAG rates compared to the AcrySof SN60WF IOL.

238 score of 1.4 +/- 1.1 for the AcrySof SN60WF IOLs (P < .001).

239 ing age, axial length, socioeconomic status, IOL model, and postoperative steroid use.

240 ng 2010-2017 and those that had a subsequent IOL removal or replacement during the same time period w

241 Eyes that underwent subsequent IOL removal or replacement were compared with eyes that

242 ith reverse (anterior) optic capture, sulcus IOL placement, piggyback IOLs, and neodymium:yttrium-alu

243 g pars plana vitrectomy with scleral-sutured IOL implantation, assumption of in-the-bag IOL position

244 After combined PPV and Gore-Tex-sutured IOL implantation, mean postoperative refractive outcomes

245 ns, uveitis-glaucoma-hyphema (UGH) syndrome, IOL opacifications, and refractive surprises.

246 These IOP sensors are a prime example that IOL technology will continue to be a driving force in op

247 Our study showed that IOL implantation is relatively safe in children older th

248 The best available evidence suggests that IOL implantation can be done safely with acceptable side

249 The IOL was fixated 2 mm posterior to the limbus in 14 eyes

250 The IOL was stable in the capsular bag as demonstrated by ti

251 age 5 to 10.5) was similar in the CL and the IOL group (P = .79).

252 OL and some are refracted posteriorly by the IOL, resulting in a gap and resultant temporal shadow.

253 Overall, treated eyes grew similarly in the IOL and CL groups and also kept pace with the growth of

254 e was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.2

255 r were fixed by transscleral suturing of the IOL and AI.

256 at strike the square (truncated) edge of the IOL and are reflected onto the retinal surface.

257 UBM also showed a stable position of the IOL optic without any tilt.

258 culations assumed in-the-bag position of the IOL.

259 or pseudophakodonesis and dislocation of the IOL.

260 of the toric axis after implantation of the IOL.

261 f the American Journal of Ophthalmology, the IOL Power Club (along with a statistician) published an

262 ays to the nasal retina pass anterior to the IOL and some are refracted posteriorly by the IOL, resul

263 rring - in contrast to misalignment - to the IOL axis change from immediately after implantation to t

264 efractive outcomes were more myopic when the IOL was fixated 2 mm from the limbus compared with 3 mm

265 ris prostheses were placed together with the IOL in the capsular bag using an injection system or wer

266 presented include design features related to IOL construction and sites of fixation; optic, filter, a

267 cond operation to realign a misaligned toric IOL from August 2013 to December 2019 at the Department

268 ithin +/-0.5 diopter (D); in eyes with toric IOL implantation that met certain inclusion criteria, 80

269 ly improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surg

270 uded astigmatism, corneal astigmatism, toric IOLs, alignment, and IOL calculation.

271 Realignment of misaligned toric IOLs improves visual acuity and reduces residual refract

272 New diagnostic technology, new toric IOLs, updated lens formulas, intraoperative guidance, an

273 orrected visual acuity with the use of toric IOLs in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

274 The toric IOLs showed a postoperative misalignment of 25.69 +/- 26

275 K/T was the most accurate of the traditional IOL formulas.

276 ve spherical aberration added by traditional IOLs to the pseudophakic visual axis.

277 e 1 were equally distributed between the two IOLs and differed from the control.

278 the ex vivo formation of PCO between the two IOLs.

279 Although most children underwent IOL implantation concurrent with unilateral cataract rem

280 Eyes that underwent IOL exchange or explantation were nearly two and a half

281 ell counts were lower in eyes that underwent IOL implantation.

282 differences between the visual acuity using IOL repositioning and that using IOL exchange 2 years af

283 cuity using IOL repositioning and that using IOL exchange 2 years after surgery.

284 -term complication profiles of these various IOL implantation techniques.

285 a simulated clinical study with 500 virtual IOL implantations per eye and per IOL.

286 ectomy combined with anterior vitrectomy +/- IOL implantation (US-Cat: 98.65%; BS-Cat: 95.24%; BT-Cat

287 ears, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is

288 ken into consideration when deciding whether IOL implantation would be appropriate.

289 and flow rate (Group II, n = 137), and with IOL insertion before the last quadrant was emulsified wi

290 o factors were significantly associated with IOL exchange/removal: an adverse event during cataract s

291 ed with microcornea (P = 0.040) but not with IOL insertion (P = 0.15).

292 All eyes underwent phacoemulsification with IOL implantation and were followed up at 1 day, 1 month,

293 All phacoemulsification surgeries with IOL (n = 17415 eyes) during 2010-2017 and those that had

294 ion used was pediatric cataract surgery with IOL implantation, and the primary outcome measure was th

295 bags of 3 donors served as controls without IOL.

296 cataract surgery and received a Vivinex XY1 IOL in 1 eye and an AcrySof SN60WF IOL in the other eye.

297 The new hydrophobic acrylic Vivinex XY1 IOL showed significantly lower PCO rates and lower YAG r

298 mean objective PCO score of the Vivinex XY1 IOLs was 0.9 +/- 0.8 compared to the PCO score of 1.4 +/

299 Implantation of SN60WF and ZA9003 IOLs was associated with a 38% and 47% subhazard reducti

300 tly lower in eyes receiving SN60WF or ZA9003 IOLs compared to ZCB00.