Unique ID issued by UMIN | UMIN000017727 |
---|---|
Receipt number | R000020520 |
Scientific Title | Corrected VA with Long Term Follow up after AcrySof IOL Implantation |
Date of disclosure of the study information | 2015/06/01 |
Last modified on | 2016/11/24 13:52:49 |
Corrected VA with Long Term Follow up
after AcrySof IOL Implantation
Corrected VA with Long Term Follow up
after AcrySof IOL Implantation
Corrected VA with Long Term Follow up
after AcrySof IOL Implantation
Corrected VA with Long Term Follow up
after AcrySof IOL Implantation
Japan |
Cataract
Ophthalmology | Adult |
Others
NO
To demonstrate non-inferiority of AcrySof (acrylic) to control IOLs (silicone and PMMA) in BCVA change at the long-term post-implantation (implantation period is 1994 to 2000) visit.
Safety,Efficacy
BCVA change at the long term post implantation visit from within 3 months after IOL implantation
Interventional
Parallel
Non-randomized
Open -but assessor(s) are blinded
Active
3
Prevention
Device,equipment |
AcrySof group
PMMA group
Slicone group
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
Male and Female
1)Willing to provide voluntary consent and able to comprehend and sign the informed consent form
2)Pseudophakic patients who were implanted with an Acrylic (AcrySof), PMMA or silicone IOL from 1994 to 2000.
3)Clear intraocular media in study eyes
4)Best corrected visual acuity (decimal) within 3 months post implantation is 0.8 (decimal VA chart) or more in study eye.
5)Patient who does not have an ocular or systemic condition which may affect visual acuity in study eye.
1)Patient who has the following complications that may have an impact on visual acuity at the time of the prospective visit in study eye.
-Glaucoma
-Diabetic retinitis
-Ocular inflammatory disease; scleritis, uveitis, herpes corneae, etc.
-Retinal detachment
-Abnormal retina and fovea; Macular degeneration, retinal disease
-Corneal disease, corneal endothelial cell loss, etc.
-History of keratoplasty
-Ocular trauma
-Intraocular surgery post IOL implantation Occur with post capsular Opacification. Eyes that had YAG laser performed or with peripheral opacification (outside the photopic pupil size) will be allowed in the study
2)Previous refractive surgery in study eye
3)Previous IOL exchange in study eye
4)Disqualified by the investigator or the sub investigator because of systemic or ophthalmic diseases
90
1st name | |
Middle name | |
Last name | Kazunori Miyata |
Miyata Eye Hospital
Miyata Eye Hospital
6-3 Kurahara Miyakonojo Miyazaki
0986-22-1441
miyata@miyata-med.ne.jp
1st name | |
Middle name | |
Last name | Koji Hasegawa |
Alcon Japan Ltd.
Clinical Development, Clinical & Regulatory Affairs
1-23-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo
03-6899-5061
koji.hasegawa@alcon.com
Alcon Japan Ltd.
Alcon Japan Ltd.
Profit organization
NO
2015 | Year | 06 | Month | 01 | Day |
Unpublished
The mean change in logMAR best-corrected visual acuity from baseline at the long-term post-implantation follow-up visit was 0.01, 0.04, and -0.01 in the AcrySof, silicone, and PMMA groups, respectively. The upper limit of 97.5% one-sided confidence interval of the difference in the change in best-corrected visual acuity between the AcrySof group and each control group was +0.01 logMAR for the silicone group and +0.07 logMAR for the PMMA group, both of which were lower than the non-inferiority margin of +0.1 logMAR.
Completed
2015 | Year | 03 | Month | 30 | Day |
2015 | Year | 06 | Month | 01 | Day |
Prospective adverse events were observed in the target eye for efficacy analysis of 1 subject (3.2%) in the AcrySof group and in the contralateral eye of 1 subject (3.3%) in the PMMA group. None of these events were considered to be related to the IOL.
Retrospective adverse events were observed in 1 subject (3.2%) in the AcrySof group, 3 subjects (8.1%) in the silicone group, and 4 subjects (13.3%) in the PMMA group. None of these events were considered to be related to the IOL.
A retrospective adverse reaction was observed in 1 subject (2.7%) in the silicone group. The causal relationship between this event and the IOL was considered unknown by the investigator, and the event was therefore classified as an adverse reaction.
No device failures were observed.
2015 | Year | 05 | Month | 28 | Day |
2016 | Year | 11 | Month | 24 | Day |
Value
https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000020520