12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses
Identifieur interne : 001561 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001560; suivant : 00156212 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses
Auteurs : A. Jabbar Khan ; S. Piers B. PercivalSource :
- Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery [ 0886-3350 ] ; 1999.
Abstract
Purpose To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Setting District General Hospital, United Kingdom.Methods In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.Results Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (P = .0085).Conclusion In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title><author><name sortKey="Khan, A Jabbar" sort="Khan, A Jabbar" uniqKey="Khan A" first="A. Jabbar" last="Khan">A. Jabbar Khan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Percival, S Piers B" sort="Percival, S Piers B" uniqKey="Percival S" first="S. Piers B" last="Percival">S. Piers B. Percival</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3</idno><date when="1999" year="1999">1999</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001561</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title><author><name sortKey="Khan, A Jabbar" sort="Khan, A Jabbar" uniqKey="Khan A" first="A. Jabbar" last="Khan">A. Jabbar Khan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Percival, S Piers B" sort="Percival, S Piers B" uniqKey="Percival S" first="S. Piers B" last="Percival">S. Piers B. Percival</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">JCRS</title><idno type="ISSN">0886-3350</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1999">1999</date><biblScope unit="volume">25</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1404">1404</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1407">1407</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0886-3350</idno></series><idno type="istex">DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</idno><idno type="PII">S0886-3350(99)00199-6</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0886-3350</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Purpose To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Setting District General Hospital, United Kingdom.Methods In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.Results Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (P = .0085).Conclusion In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><author><json:item><name>A.Jabbar Khan</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>S.Piers B Percival</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Purpose To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Setting District General Hospital, United Kingdom.Methods In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.Results Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (P = .0085).Conclusion In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>3.423</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>586 x 785 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>989</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>1599</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>9959</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>4</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>152</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title><pii><json:string>S0886-3350(99)00199-6</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>25</volume><pii><json:string>S0886-3350(00)X0006-5</json:string></pii><pages><last>1407</last><first>1404</first></pages><issn><json:string>0886-3350</json:string></issn><issue>10</issue><genre><json:string>Journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery</title><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate></host><categories><wos><json:string>OPHTHALMOLOGY</json:string><json:string>SURGERY</json:string></wos></categories><publicationDate>1999</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1999</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</json:string></doi><id>DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>ELSEVIER</p></availability><date>1999</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note>Neither of the authors has a financial interest in any product mentioned.</note><note type="content">Section title: Articles</note><note type="content">Table 1: Age brackets by decade and sex in each group of 125 eyes.</note><note type="content">Table 2: Age and sex at surgery of the 75 patients who survived 12 years.</note><note type="content">Table 3: Corrected visual acuity in the 75 eyes 12 years after surgery.legend</note><note type="content">Table 4: Reasons for visual acuity worse than 20/40.</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title><author><persName><forename type="first">A.Jabbar</forename><surname>Khan</surname></persName><note type="biography">FRCSE</note><note type="biography">Reprint requests to Mr. A.J. Khan, FRCSE, Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Woodlands Drive, Scarborough YO12 6QL, England</note><affiliation>FRCSE</affiliation><affiliation>Reprint requests to Mr. A.J. Khan, FRCSE, Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Woodlands Drive, Scarborough YO12 6QL, England</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</affiliation></author><author><persName><forename type="first">S.Piers B</forename><surname>Percival</surname></persName><note type="biography">FRCS, FRCOphth</note><affiliation>FRCS, FRCOphth</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">JCRS</title><idno type="pISSN">0886-3350</idno><idno type="PII">S0886-3350(00)X0006-5</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1999"></date><biblScope unit="volume">25</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1404">1404</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1407">1407</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</idno><idno type="PII">S0886-3350(99)00199-6</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1999</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Purpose To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Setting District General Hospital, United Kingdom.Methods In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.Results Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (P = .0085).Conclusion In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1999-05-05">Registration</change><change when="1999">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier, elements deleted: ce:floats; body; tail"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 4.5.2//EN//XML" URI="art452.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><converted-article version="4.5.2" docsubtype="fla" xml:lang="en"><item-info><jid>JCRS</jid><aid>198</aid><ce:pii>S0886-3350(99)00199-6</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="society" year="1999">ASCRS and ESCRS</ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:dochead><ce:textfn>Articles</ce:textfn></ce:dochead><ce:title>12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses<ce:cross-ref refid="FN1">1</ce:cross-ref><ce:footnote id="FN1"><ce:label>1</ce:label><ce:note-para>Neither of the authors has a financial interest in any product mentioned.</ce:note-para></ce:footnote></ce:title><ce:presented>Presented in part at the XVIth Congress of the European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons, Nice, France, September 1998.</ce:presented><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>A.Jabbar</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Khan</ce:surname><ce:roles>FRCSE</ce:roles><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="CORR1">*</ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>S.Piers B</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Percival</ce:surname><ce:roles>FRCS, FRCOphth</ce:roles><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:affiliation id="AFF1"><ce:label>a</ce:label><ce:textfn>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:correspondence id="CORR1"><ce:label>*</ce:label><ce:text>Reprint requests to Mr. A.J. Khan, FRCSE, Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Woodlands Drive, Scarborough YO12 6QL, England</ce:text></ce:correspondence></ce:author-group><ce:date-accepted day="5" month="5" year="1999"></ce:date-accepted><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:section-title>Purpose</ce:section-title><ce:simple-para>To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec><ce:abstract-sec><ce:section-title>Setting</ce:section-title><ce:simple-para>District General Hospital, United Kingdom.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec><ce:abstract-sec><ce:section-title>Methods</ce:section-title><ce:simple-para>In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec><ce:abstract-sec><ce:section-title>Results</ce:section-title><ce:simple-para>Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (<ce:italic>P</ce:italic> = .0085).</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec><ce:abstract-sec><ce:section-title>Conclusion</ce:section-title><ce:simple-para>In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract></head></converted-article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A.Jabbar</namePart><namePart type="family">Khan</namePart><description>FRCSE</description><affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</affiliation><description>Reprint requests to Mr. A.J. Khan, FRCSE, Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Woodlands Drive, Scarborough YO12 6QL, England</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">S.Piers B</namePart><namePart type="family">Percival</namePart><description>FRCS, FRCOphth</description><affiliation>Department of Ophthalmology, Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, England, United Kingdom</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999</dateIssued><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">1999-05-05</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1999</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Purpose To compare long-term biocompatibility of single-piece poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (P-HEMA) intraocular lenses (IOLs).Setting District General Hospital, United Kingdom.Methods In a prospective trial of 250 eyes that had uncomplicated extracapsular cataract extraction, 2 groups of 125 eyes each were matched for age and sex. One group received single-piece looped PMMA IOLs and the other, single-piece solid-hapticP-HEMA IOLs. In all eyes, the IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag at the time of surgery using the envelope technique.Results Twelve years after surgery, 75 eyes were available for examination. In the PMMA group (40 eyes), 50% had a visual acuity of 20/20 and 50% had intact capsules, many of them with a degree of fibrosis. In the P-HEMA group (35 eyes), 71% had an acuity of 20/20 and 80% had intact capsules (P = .0085).Conclusion In the long term, biocompatibility was better in the P-HEMA group than in the PMMA group.</abstract><note type="footnote">Neither of the authors has a financial interest in any product mentioned.</note><note type="content">Section title: Articles</note><note type="content">Table 1: Age brackets by decade and sex in each group of 125 eyes.</note><note type="content">Table 2: Age and sex at surgery of the 75 patients who survived 12 years.</note><note type="content">Table 3: Corrected visual acuity in the 75 eyes 12 years after surgery.legend</note><note type="content">Table 4: Reasons for visual acuity worse than 20/40.</note><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>JCRS</title></titleInfo><genre type="Journal">journal</genre><originInfo><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199910</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0886-3350</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0886-3350(00)X0006-5</identifier><part><date>199910</date><detail type="volume"><number>25</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>10</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue pages"><start>1305</start><end>1420</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>1404</start><end>1407</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00199-6</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0886-3350(99)00199-6</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="">© 1999ASCRS and ESCRS</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>ELSEVIER</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>ASCRS and ESCRS, ©1999</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><enrichments><istex:catWosTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3/enrichments/catWos"><teiHeader><profileDesc><textClass><classCode scheme="WOS">OPHTHALMOLOGY</classCode><classCode scheme="WOS">SURGERY</classCode></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:catWosTEI></enrichments><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001561 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001561 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= HapticV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:DB23752781D15C9F3ABC899D78B90BDD91A604F3
|texte= 12 year results of a prospective trial comparing poly(methyl methacrylate) and poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. |  |