Cargando…

Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD

This clinical investigation compared the clinical performance of two marketed ophthalmic viscoelastic devices (OVDs): the bacterially derived Healon PRO OVD (test) and the animal-derived Healon OVD (control) under normal use conditions during cataract removal and lens implantation. This prospective,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Daas, Loay, Larrosa, Jose Manuel, Gavin, Alicia, Isanta, Carlos, Langenbucher, Achim, Jackson, Beth E., Tsai, Linda, Janakiraman, Priya, Guerrero, Rafael, Seitz, Berthold
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8028729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33859833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8874850
_version_ 1783675994373095424
author Daas, Loay
Larrosa, Jose Manuel
Gavin, Alicia
Isanta, Carlos
Langenbucher, Achim
Jackson, Beth E.
Tsai, Linda
Janakiraman, Priya
Guerrero, Rafael
Seitz, Berthold
author_facet Daas, Loay
Larrosa, Jose Manuel
Gavin, Alicia
Isanta, Carlos
Langenbucher, Achim
Jackson, Beth E.
Tsai, Linda
Janakiraman, Priya
Guerrero, Rafael
Seitz, Berthold
author_sort Daas, Loay
collection PubMed
description This clinical investigation compared the clinical performance of two marketed ophthalmic viscoelastic devices (OVDs): the bacterially derived Healon PRO OVD (test) and the animal-derived Healon OVD (control) under normal use conditions during cataract removal and lens implantation. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel, participant/evaluator masked, postmarket investigation enrolled 139 subjects (170 eyes), 116 (143 eyes) of which were treated (73 test; 70 control group). Both test and control OVDs were used, at a minimum, to inflate the anterior chamber and protect the endothelium prior to cataract extraction according to the standard procedure. The surgeon completed a postsurgery OVD clinical performance questionnaire, and intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured before surgery and at the 1 day postoperative visit with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Any IOP measurement of 30 mmHg or higher was considered a “spike” and recorded as a study-specific, serious adverse event. The bacterially derived Healon PRO OVD was found to be statistically noninferior to the overall clinical performance of the animal-derived Healon OVD control; thus, the primary hypothesis was satisfied. There were no statistically significant differences between OVD groups for any of the additional endpoints relating to IOP changes or to safety, thus satisfying additional hypotheses. The Healon PRO OVD showed statistically significant improvements in surgeon ratings for ease of injectability, transparency/visibility, and ease of IOL placement. The safety profile was also similar between OVD groups with regards to serious and/or device-related adverse events, as well as medical and lens findings. The results of this clinical investigation support the safety and effectiveness of the bacterially derived, currently marketed Healon PRO OVD and indicate that the intraocular surgical performance was similar between the two OVDs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8028729
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80287292021-04-14 Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD Daas, Loay Larrosa, Jose Manuel Gavin, Alicia Isanta, Carlos Langenbucher, Achim Jackson, Beth E. Tsai, Linda Janakiraman, Priya Guerrero, Rafael Seitz, Berthold J Ophthalmol Research Article This clinical investigation compared the clinical performance of two marketed ophthalmic viscoelastic devices (OVDs): the bacterially derived Healon PRO OVD (test) and the animal-derived Healon OVD (control) under normal use conditions during cataract removal and lens implantation. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel, participant/evaluator masked, postmarket investigation enrolled 139 subjects (170 eyes), 116 (143 eyes) of which were treated (73 test; 70 control group). Both test and control OVDs were used, at a minimum, to inflate the anterior chamber and protect the endothelium prior to cataract extraction according to the standard procedure. The surgeon completed a postsurgery OVD clinical performance questionnaire, and intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured before surgery and at the 1 day postoperative visit with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Any IOP measurement of 30 mmHg or higher was considered a “spike” and recorded as a study-specific, serious adverse event. The bacterially derived Healon PRO OVD was found to be statistically noninferior to the overall clinical performance of the animal-derived Healon OVD control; thus, the primary hypothesis was satisfied. There were no statistically significant differences between OVD groups for any of the additional endpoints relating to IOP changes or to safety, thus satisfying additional hypotheses. The Healon PRO OVD showed statistically significant improvements in surgeon ratings for ease of injectability, transparency/visibility, and ease of IOL placement. The safety profile was also similar between OVD groups with regards to serious and/or device-related adverse events, as well as medical and lens findings. The results of this clinical investigation support the safety and effectiveness of the bacterially derived, currently marketed Healon PRO OVD and indicate that the intraocular surgical performance was similar between the two OVDs. Hindawi 2020-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8028729/ /pubmed/33859833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8874850 Text en Copyright © 2020 Loay Daas et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Daas, Loay
Larrosa, Jose Manuel
Gavin, Alicia
Isanta, Carlos
Langenbucher, Achim
Jackson, Beth E.
Tsai, Linda
Janakiraman, Priya
Guerrero, Rafael
Seitz, Berthold
Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title_full Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title_fullStr Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title_short Clinical Comparison of the Performance of Two Marketed Ophthalmic Viscoelastic Devices (OVDs): The Bacterially Derived Healon PRO OVD and Animal-Derived Healon OVD
title_sort clinical comparison of the performance of two marketed ophthalmic viscoelastic devices (ovds): the bacterially derived healon pro ovd and animal-derived healon ovd
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8028729/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33859833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8874850
work_keys_str_mv AT daasloay clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT larrosajosemanuel clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT gavinalicia clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT isantacarlos clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT langenbucherachim clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT jacksonbethe clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT tsailinda clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT janakiramanpriya clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT guerrerorafael clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd
AT seitzberthold clinicalcomparisonoftheperformanceoftwomarketedophthalmicviscoelasticdevicesovdsthebacteriallyderivedhealonproovdandanimalderivedhealonovd