ライフサイエンスコーパス: IOL

1 IOL calcifications after (triple-)DMEK occurred in 14 pa

2 IOL calcifications after anterior chamber gas tamponade

3 IOL calcifications also occur in hydrophobic acrylic IOL

4 IOL placement was nearly universal in children 2 years o

5 IOL power calculations according to the Holladay 2 formu

6 IOL rotational stability and refractive predictability i

7 rror were evaluated for all 7 methods with 1 IOL type.

8 tment groups: Frisby (contact lens, 6 [11%]; IOL, 7 [13%]; P = .99), Randot (contact lens, 3 [6%]; IO

9 P = .62), or Titmus (contact lens, 8 [15%]; IOL, 13 [23%]; P = .34).

10 la had the lowest prediction error for the 2 IOL models studied.

11 eyes; 9.77%), optic capture (15 eyes; 8.6%), IOL decentration (9 eyes; 5.17%), and secondary glaucoma

12 3%]; P = .99), Randot (contact lens, 3 [6%]; IOL, 1 [2%]; P = .62), or Titmus (contact lens, 8 [15%];

13 (13-27), and 14 (0-29) for the AT LISA 809M IOL group, respectively, and 32 (15-37), 22 (13-30), and

14 nce was slightly nearer for the AT LISA 809M IOL.

15 than refractive precision, and accommodating IOLs all becoming standard.

16 The Lumina accommodative IOL effectively restores the visual function, accommodat

17 multifocal and OPTOFLEX FIL618 accommodative IOLs (Soleko, Ltd., Rome, Italy) in patients undergoing

18 e (RE) PMMA IOL or an SE hydrophobic acrylic IOL (SE-Acrylic).

19 s compared with the contralateral SE-Acrylic IOL eyes at all but the 1- and 3-year follow-up visits.

20 in 46 patients (group A), and an SE-Acrylic IOL was implanted in the fellow eye in 48 patients (grou

21 a multicenter study of 6 hydrophilic acrylic IOLs (Lentis LS-502-1; Oculentis GmbH, Berlin, Germany)

22 esence of hydrophilic vs hydrophobic acrylic IOLs were comparable in affected and unaffected eyes.

23 piece or three-piece) of hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with 360 degrees square optic edge using an in vitr

24 ifications also occur in hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.

25 % for SE-PMMA IOLs versus 10% for SE-Acrylic IOLs in group B (P = 0.435).

26 After IOL implantation during infancy, the rate of myopic shif

27 All IOLs were well centered in PPC eyes, and histopathologic

28 An IOL super formula was formulated that incorporates the i

29 An IOL was placed in 35 of 460 eyes (8%) when surgery was p

30 psule rupture in 14 eyes, 10 of which had an IOL placed.

31 DMEK grafts can be preloaded using TM in an IOL cartridge and stored up to 4 days with limited endot

32 with a type-IV collagen membrane on which an IOL (one-piece Tecnis-1 or three-piece AR40E, Abbott Med

33 ith Stickler syndrome, and 1 patient with an IOL exchange at 8 months postoperatively.

34 genital cataract corrected optically with an IOL was $27 090 versus $25 331 for a patient treated wit

35 ere plated on the insert membrane without an IOL.

36 IOL], 2.83 for aphakic eyes; P < 0.001), and IOL exchange or removal during surgery (adjusted HR, 1.4

37 at least 6 months of follow-up (n = 18) and IOL stability during follow-up for all eyes (n = 24).

38 gth measurements with the IOL Master 500 and IOL Master 700 showed a mean difference of 0.008 mm betw

39 therwise a negative relationship with AL and IOL power was found.

40 For measurements with Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 700, a mean difference of -0.019 mm and COR o

41 es between treated and fellow eyes of CL and IOL groups were compared with a paired t test.

42 yes was similar with both treatments (CL and IOL), did not correlate with visual outcomes, and was hi

43 loplegia on refractive prediction errors and IOL power calculations determined with Haigis and Hollad

44 , D2), slope of the line across the iris and IOL, the slope ratio between the IOL and iris, IOL tilt,

45 similar with both treatments (CL 3.2 mm and IOL 3.4 mm, P = 0.53) and did not correlate with visual

46 nvestigated changes in ocular parameters and IOL power calculations attributable to cycloplegia.

47 No significant relationship with PE and IOL types, AL, K1, K2, IOL power, and attempted value, b

48 d optical biometry using Oculus Pentacam and IOL Master were assessed for discriminative value in Mar

49 ponade combined with phacoemulsification and IOL implantation for recurrent inferior retinal detachme

50 aract that all required cataract surgery and IOL implantation.

51 New corneal imaging technology and IOL calculation formulas have improved outcomes and hold

52 nce between the iris margin and the anterior IOL optic (D1, D2), slope of the line across the iris an

53 New open bag IOL designs separate the anterior capsule and posterior

54 sults when used in conjunction with open bag IOL designs.

55 efractive status in cases of late in-the-bag IOL complex dislocation.

56 showed an IOP decrease after late in-the-bag IOL dislocation surgery that seemed to be more pronounce

57 neventful cataract surgeries with in-the-bag IOLs who presented with IOL dislocation between 2008 and

58 used to obtain the Fourier-domain OCT-based IOL formula.

59 There was no significant difference between IOL groups in Rasch-adjusted QoV scores for frequency (P

60 Both these diffractive bifocal IOLs produce high levels of spectacle independence and p

61 ster 700) to a widely used optical biometer (IOL Master 500).

62 ve refraction prediction (P < 0.01) for both IOL types.

63 In the first case, the Soemmering-capsule-IOL complex caused relative pupillary block similar to a

64 ors in estimation of corneal power can cause IOL calculation errors in eyes with normal corneas, grea

65 gone cataract surgery with posterior chamber IOL implantation and that had no recorded clinical histo

66 nal outcomes and safety of posterior chamber IOL implantation using Hoffman scleral haptic fixation a

67 with retropupillary fixation of an iris-claw IOL (n = 50).

68 The following data were obtained: Iris-claw IOL model, Iridal or retroiridal enclavation, A-constant

69 ormula for aphakia correction with iris-claw IOLs to achieve the best refractive status in cases of l

70 At day six (cells confluent in controls) IOLs were removed and cell counting, viability and cell

71 We determined IOL power calculations with the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/t

72 Three different IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag.

73 quired in order to reposition the dislocated IOL-CB complex in the presence of a posterior chamber dr

74 Cell density in the area under each IOL was significantly lower than in the area outside of

75 The new trifocal EDOF IOL provides visual improvement for far, intermediate, a

76 Newer technology to estimate IOL power calculations in eyes after LVC shows promising

77 However, FIL611PV IOL may represent a valid and more cost-effective altern

78 Bilateral FineVision IOL implant achieved a full range of adequate vision, sa

79 to make refractive outcomes challenging for IOL implantation during infancy.

80 0D) than those with a diameter of 2.5 mm for IOL power calculations (SRK/T: -0.20 to 0.20D; Holladay

81 ound biometry and SRK/T formula was used for IOL calculation.

82 In 3 intraocular fluid samples for IOLs with biofilm, we identified 16S rDNA by polymerase

83 SRK/T formula is one of the third generation IOL calculation formulas.

84 ith a minimum 5 years' follow-up after glued IOL surgery were included.

85 ignificant optic tilt in patients with glued IOL fixation.

86 ong-term analysis with OCT demonstrated good IOL positioning without any significant optic tilt in pa

87 kerato-refractometry (Topcon), Pentacam HR, IOL Master (Zeiss) axial length measurements and fundus

88 the calcification pattern of the hydrophilic IOL (Lentis LS-502-1) with a hydrophobic surface.

89 in the interior of the opacified hydrophilic IOLs, with a pattern showing the formation of lumps on t

90 of the existing formulas and uses the ideal IOL formula for an individual eye.

91 day 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, SRK-T, and SRK-II IOL power prediction formulas and proportions of eyes ac

92 n (P), and 4) intraocular lens implantation (IOL).

93 Prediction error of the implanted IOL was <1.00 diopter in 54% of eyes, but >2.00 diopters

94 Advances in IOL calculation technology and formulas have greatly inc

95 measurements are a major source of error in IOL calculations.

96 corneal measurement errors that can occur in IOL calculation are categorized and described, along wit

97 of disparity between an existing individual IOL formula and our super formula.

98 L, the slope ratio between the IOL and iris, IOL tilt, and optic surface changes were determined and

99 nt positive relationship with AL and K1, K2, IOL power and a strong negative relationship with PE and

100 ationship with PE and IOL types, AL, K1, K2, IOL power, and attempted value, besides with MAE and AL,

101 Last, IOL power values of a set of 100 eyes from consecutive p

102 Initial undercorrection of intraocular lens (IOL power) is a common practice in children undergoing p

103 be management of a case of intraocular lens (IOL) and capsular bag (CB) dislocation in an eye with an

104 e 9 patients (56%) who had intraocular lens (IOL) and capsular bag removals had better final BCVAs th

105 To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis,

106 were gently moved in a 2.2 intraocular lens (IOL) cartridge and pulled further in the funnel using 25

107 a new trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) combined with Enhanced depth of focus (EDOF) techno

108 ients with late in-the-bag intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation operated with 2 different methods, and

109 ethods for late in-the-bag intraocular lens (IOL) dislocation.

110 Scleral intraocular lens (IOL) fixation is an accepted treatment method of this co

111 bluxated posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) following complicated cataract surgery, trauma, or

112 n of the posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) have been developed.

113 Toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation can be an effective method for correct

114 fter cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation for infants enrolled in the Infant Aph

115 ediatric primary posterior intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in children older than 24 months has b

116 e 5 years after unilateral intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in infants.

117 ship to aphakia vs primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation remains unsettled.

118 g to successful in-the-bag intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

119 d, in candidates for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

120 th phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

121 most accurate power of the intraocular lens (IOL) is a critical factor in optimizing patient outcomes

122 An intraocular lens (IOL) is implanted into residual lens tissue, known as th

123 ymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) intraocular lens (IOL) modification in comparison with a round-edge (RE) P

124 7 months to either primary intraocular lens (IOL) or contact lens correction.

125 reproducibility of the VRF intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula with well-known methods.

126 o optimize the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in patients after DMEK by evalua

127 cycloplegia, and therefore intraocular lens (IOL) power measurements calculated by formulas using ant

128 e capsular tissue, and the intraocular lens (IOL) surfaces of normal eyes after long-term uncomplicat

129 glued transscleral fixated intraocular lens (IOL) with optical coherence tomography (OCT).

130 lantation of a quadrifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

131 ity (contact lens [CL] vs. intraocular lens [IOL]).

132 1.43 for anterior chamber intraocular lens [IOL], 2.83 for aphakic eyes; P < 0.001), and IOL exchang

133 rs for calcifications of intraocular lenses (IOLs) after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (

134 th implantation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) during cataract surgery.

135 ive (non-toric) trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in a large series of patients.

136 mulsification and use of intraocular lenses (IOLs), both very controversial when initially introduced

137 ith monofocal, non-toric intraocular lenses (IOLs).

138 lue-blocking and neutral intraocular lenses (IOLs).

139 First, the Indian Ocean lineage (IOL) caused sustained epidemics in India and has radiate

140 2.20 +/- 1.57D and 42.17 +/- 1.68D, the mean IOL power was 15.79 +/- 5.17D, the mean attempted value

141 5.76 +/- 1.77D and 46.09 +/- 1.61D, the mean IOL power was 23.96 +/- 1.92D, the mean attempted (predi

142 L eyes (toric IOL = 0.46 +/- 0.16, monofocal IOL with PRK = 0.73 +/- 0.12; P < .001).

143 RK eyes (toric IOL= 1.02 +/- 0.44, monofocal IOL with PRK = 1.28 +/- 0.5; P = .04).

144 rations (5 mm pupil) was higher in monofocal IOL with PRK eyes (toric IOL= 1.02 +/- 0.44, monofocal I

145 erative pain scores were higher in monofocal IOL with PRK eyes.

146 the toric IOL and 60% eyes in the monofocal IOL with PRK group attained UDVA of 20/20.

147 A60AT (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) monofocal IOL.

148 In the MFS group, significantly more IOL-dislocations occurred than compared to the non-MFS g

149 The AcrySof ReSTOR SN6AD1 multifocal IOL provided the best visual acuity results and tolerabi

150 ) and impact on vision quality of multifocal IOLs AcrySof ResTOR SN6AD1 and SN6AD3 (Alcon, Inc., Fort

151 omized to receive a blue-blocking or neutral IOL.

152 s detected between blue-blocking and neutral IOLs, whereas low preoperative blue light transmission w

153 cataract surgery to either primary IOL or no IOL implantation (contact lens).

154 r aggregated cocci were probable in 18.8% of IOL optic surfaces (n = 13) studied by scanning electron

155 mulas have greatly increased the accuracy of IOL calculations.

156 howed a tendency to slightly larger areas of IOL calcifications.

157 the most reliable choice for calculation of IOL power with the OA-2000.

158 toperatively, we noticed two dislocations of IOL fixated using Sharioth technique and none after Hoff

159 tacle use, and photographic documentation of IOL rotational stability.

160 h other most commonly used modern methods of IOL power calculation (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Hol

161 The odds of IOL implantation were greater in children >/=2 years of

162 ur data shows a significantly higher rate of IOL dislocations in patients with MFS.

163 ence tomography produced smaller variance of IOL PE than did Wang-Koch-Maloney (WKM) and Shammas (P <

164 al biofilm formation on the optic surface of IOLs in normal eyes after long-term uncomplicated catara

165 epositioning by scleral suturing (n = 54) or IOL exchange with a retropupillar iris-claw lens (n = 50

166 eived bilateral implantation of the PanOptix IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptixTM; Alcon Research, Fort Worth,

167 Visual performance of the PanOptix IOL showed good VA at all distances; particularly good i

168 ison study suggests that an inexpensive PMMA IOL design modification-a squared optic edge-could signi

169 on in comparison with a round-edge (RE) PMMA IOL or an SE hydrophobic acrylic IOL (SE-Acrylic).

170 An RE-PMMA IOL was implanted in the fellow eye in 46 patients (grou

171 score was significantly lower in the SE-PMMA IOL eyes compared with the contralateral RE-PMMA eyes at

172 score was statistically lower in the SE-PMMA IOL eyes compared with the contralateral SE-Acrylic IOL

173 bilateral phacoemulsification had an SE-PMMA IOL implanted in 1 eye.

174 e 2% for SE-PMMA IOLs versus 37% for RE-PMMA IOLs in group A (P < 0.001), and 4% for SE-PMMA IOLs ver

175 s in group A (P < 0.001), and 4% for SE-PMMA IOLs versus 10% for SE-Acrylic IOLs in group B (P = 0.43

176 Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates were 2% for SE-PMMA IOLs versus 37% for RE-PMMA IOLs in group A (P < 0.001),

177 IOL power calculations, even if postdilation IOL power calculations had changed.

178 te of complications as well as postoperative IOL position were collected.

179 Postoperatively, IOL position was examined by anterior segment OCT (Carl

180 taract surgery with a single highly powerful IOL (Acrysof SA60AT) implanted in the capsular bag (rang

181 ract surgery as target refraction, predicted IOL power for each method was calculated.

182 E) was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the power of the IOL implanted.

183 Primary IOL implantation should be considered in children who re

184 ho underwent cataract surgery with a primary IOL implantation and had completed follow-up to >/=7 yea

185 act removal at 1 to 6 months of age; primary IOL placement does not mitigate their risk but surgery a

186 d were either corrected optically by primary IOL implantation at the time of surgery or were correcte

187 cal treatment of aphakia with either primary IOL implantation (n = 57) or CL correction (n = 57) in 1

188 omized at cataract surgery to either primary IOL or no IOL implantation (contact lens).

189 Treatment Study have concluded that primary IOL implantation before age 7 months has no advantages o

190 The data suggest that primary IOL implantation in this age group has a lower rate of a

191 milar to that in children undergoing primary IOL implantation when older than 2 years.

192 ract surgery in infancy coupled with primary IOL implantation is approximately 7% more expensive than

193 were within +/-1.00 D of targeted refractive IOL power prediction error.

194 were within +/-1.00 D of targeted refractive IOL power prediction error.

195 A novel method was developed to represent IOL formulas in 3 dimensions.

196 omena, 92% of patients would choose the same IOL again.

197 ostdilation conditions according to the same IOL power calculations, even if postdilation IOL power c

198 To now, no long-term data on scleral IOL fixation in MFS exist.

199 Mean age at secondary IOL implantation was 6.08 +/- 3.75 years.

200 techniques are feasible methods of secondary IOL implantation in posttraumatic and postoperative apha

201 eral, 34 unilateral) who underwent secondary IOL implantation for aphakia after congenital cataract s

202 r better in children who underwent secondary IOL implantation for unilateral aphakia.

203 PPV with secondary IOL placement is safe and effective, resulting in improv

204 (13-30), and 14 (0-29) for the ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOL group, respectively.

205 tation of the AT LISA 809M and ReSTOR SN6AD1 IOLs.

206 Standard IOLs allow the anterior and posterior capsules to become

207 Secondary sulcus IOL implantation in children is a relatively safe proced

208 rategy to scleral-fixated or angle-supported IOL implantation.

209 sidual refractions for the individual target IOL were compared and analyzed.

210 n the residual refraction between the target IOL measured by ray tracing and that calculated with thi

211 The IOL optic edges were covered in all areas by either resi

212 The IOL power was calculated for all patients by ray tracing

213 The IOL power was estimated preoperatively using the IOLMast

214 The IOL prediction error (PE) was obtained by subtracting th

215 The IOL rotation was within 3 degrees in both eyes, therefor

216 s were measured with the IOL Master 500, the IOL Master 700, and with the Pentacam AXL.

217 P = 0.000) between the slope of iris and the IOL in horizontal and vertical axes.

218 he iris and IOL, the slope ratio between the IOL and iris, IOL tilt, and optic surface changes were d

219 The mean angle between the IOL and the iris was noted to be 3.2 +/- 2.7 degrees and

220 urements intraoperatively and calculated the IOL power with a modified vergence formula.

221 stallite clusters seemed to diffuse from the IOL interior to the surface.

222 ; this needs to be taken into account in the IOL power calculation to avoid hyperopic refractive surp

223 st/Central/South African (ECSA) lineage, the IOL, and the Asian lineage.

224 Eyes managed with PPV and removal of the IOL and capsular bag had better visual outcomes.

225 he predicted IOL power from the power of the IOL implanted.

226 was returned to in front of the optic of the IOL using a forceps tip through a sclerotomy.

227 Position of the IOL was not dependent on the type of lens, age of the pa

228 This places pressure on the IOL and improves contact with the underlying posterior c

229 sence of microbes (biofilm formation) on the IOL surface by scanning electron microscopy and ultrastr

230 f 60 eyes (15%) had pigment dispersed on the IOL surface.

231 s with total anterior capsule cover over the IOL optic.

232 We also performed the IOL calculation using four third-generation formulas (SR

233 ial role in avoiding LEC migration under the IOL and preventing the formation of PCO after cataract s

234 eteen years after cataract surgery, when the IOL-CB complex became dislocated, they were sutured tran

235 es were then analyzed to determine where the IOL powers calculated by each formula differed by more t

236 alysis of axial length measurements with the IOL Master 500 and IOL Master 700 showed a mean differen

237 For measurements with the IOL Master 500 and Pentacam AXL, a mean difference of 0.

238 e eyes in 79 patients were measured with the IOL Master 500, the IOL Master 700, and with the Pentaca

239 The IOLs were equivalent in achieving spectacle independence

240 o four groups for implantation of one of the IOLs under evaluation.

241 ating from the hydrophilic subsurface of the IOLs.

242 ility and cell density under and outside the IOLs were evaluated.

243 e "satisfied" to "very satisfied" with their IOL performance.

244 was within 3 degrees in both eyes, therefore IOL repositioning was not necessary.

245 04 patients (eyes) were randomly assigned to IOL repositioning by scleral suturing (n = 54) or IOL ex

246 y assigned 104 patients (104 eyes) either to IOL repositioning by scleral suturing (n = 54) or to IOL

247 sitioning by scleral suturing (n = 54) or to IOL exchange with retropupillary fixation of an iris-cla

248 ith a unilateral cataract were randomized to IOL implantation with an initial targeted postoperative

249 g swept-source optical coherence tomography (IOL Master 700) to a widely used optical biometer (IOL M

250 siderably influences the candidate and toric IOL power selection in a large proportion of cases.

251 e acuity was better in toric IOL eyes (toric IOL = 0.46 +/- 0.16, monofocal IOL with PRK = 0.73 +/- 0

252 higher in monofocal IOL with PRK eyes (toric IOL= 1.02 +/- 0.44, monofocal IOL with PRK = 1.28 +/- 0.

253 tacam HR, is greater in candidates for toric IOL implantation than in the general population.

254 ter (D) were defined as candidates for toric IOL implantation.

255 Mean glare acuity was better in toric IOL eyes (toric IOL = 0.46 +/- 0.16, monofocal IOL with

256 e decrease the residual astigmatism in toric IOL implantation.

257 Mean toric IOL rotation was 1.3 +/- 2.1 degrees.

258 (RCTs) if they compared toric with non-toric IOL implantation (+/- relaxing incision) in patients wit

259 in the toric IOL group than in the non-toric IOL plus relaxing incision group (mean difference, 0.37

260 equally well corrected with the use of toric IOL during cataract surgery.

261 aware, there are no reported cases of toric IOL implantation in a vitrectomized eye with keratoconus

262 rectomized eye with keratoconus nor of toric IOL implantation in patients with scleral-buckle-induced

263 ur purpose is to report the outcome of toric IOL implantation in two cases - a patient with scleral-b

264 These cases demonstrate that toric IOL implantation is a predictable and safe method for th

265 71) and moderate quality evidence that toric IOL implantation was not associated with an increased ri

266 At 6 months 53.3% of eyes in the toric IOL and 60% eyes in the monofocal IOL with PRK group att

267 evidence that UCDVA was better in the toric IOL group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution

268 Residual astigmatism was lower in the toric IOL group than in the non-toric IOL plus relaxing incisi

269 o have no impact on the success of the toric IOL implantation, even in keratoconus.

270 s lesser residual cylinder compared to toric IOL.

271 tism underwent cataract operation with toric IOL implantation after posterior segment surgery.

272 Toric IOLs may correct for preexisting corneal astigmatism at

273 ounts of residual astigmatism than non-toric IOLs even when relaxing incisions were used.

274 ic IOLs and 706 eyes randomized to non-toric IOLs; 225 eyes had a relaxing incision.

275 The TECNIS toric IOLs successfully reduce ocular astigmatism and are a sa

276 We found that toric IOLs provided better UCDVA, greater spectacle independen

277 ed 13 RCTs with 707 eyes randomized to toric IOLs and 706 eyes randomized to non-toric IOLs; 225 eyes

278 ved in only 80% of eyes implanted with toric IOLs.

279 Evaluation of a trifocal IOL showed good VA (0.1 logMAR or better) at far, interm

280 5000 patients, implantation of both trifocal IOL models provided good functional distance, intermedia

281 teral implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (Reviol Tri-ED) designed with a combination of enhan

282 nted bilaterally with a diffractive trifocal IOL: FineVision Micro F (PhysIOL SA, Liege, Belgium) or

283 lateral implantation of the AT LISA trifocal IOL (AT LISA tri839MP; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany

284 The PanOptix trifocal IOL provides good short-term visual outcomes, with good

285 The trifocal IOL improved near, intermediate, and distance vision com

286 A total of 10 084 trifocal IOLs were bilaterally implanted (5802 FineVision in 2901

287 Medical Optics, Santa Ana, California, USA) IOL.

288 used to determine group assignment and which IOL was implanted in the first eye to undergo surgery.

289 Cataract extraction during infancy with IOL implantation was not associated with a reduced EC co

290 Patients with IOL calcifications had higher rebubbling rates than pati

291 Phacoemulsification with IOL implant, PPV with silicone oil tamponade associated

292 ries with in-the-bag IOLs who presented with IOL dislocation between 2008 and 2013 were identified (n

293 Eyes presenting with IOL dislocation (case group) were compared with fellow e

294 n patients with PXF, the eye presenting with IOL dislocation was more likely than its fellow eye to h

295 rgery that seemed to be more pronounced with IOL exchange.

296 cts underwent standard cataract surgery with IOL implantation.

297 Mean CCT was higher in eyes with IOLs (605 vs. 571 mum, P<0.0001) compared with fellow ey

298 that over 90% of normal eyes implanted with IOLs may achieve accuracy to within 0.5 diopter (D) of t

299 ifference in EC density in eyes treated with IOLs compared with fellow eyes (3445 and 3487 cells/mm2,

300 and implanted with ZCT225, ZCT300, or ZCT400 IOLs.