Table 2.
Comparisons of posterior capsular opacification and Nd:YAG capsulotomy rate in different axial length groups
| Control | High myopia | P-valuea | P-valueb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Subgroup | |||||
| HM1 | HM2 | |||||
| PCO-3 mm | 0.04 ± 0.11 | 0.19 ± 0.38 | 0.14 ± 0.27 | 0.22 ± 0.43 | < 0.001c | 0.017c |
| PCO-C | 0.08 ± 0.24 | 0.24 ± 0.40 | 0.18 ± 0.31 | 0.27 ± 0.44 | < 0.001c | 0.013c |
| Nd:YAG capsulotomy rate | 11.2% (25/224) | 21.7% (146/673) | 18.5% (40/216) | 23.2% (106/457) | 0.001c | 0.193 |
| Clinically significant PCO rate | 18.3% (41/224) | 41.6% (280/673) | 35.2% (76/216) | 44.6% (204/457) | < 0.001c | 0.024c |
PCO-3 mm EPCO score within the central 3.0 mm zone, PCO-C EPCO score within the capsulorhexis margin, Nd:YAG neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet. Control: AL < 26 mm; high myopia: AL ≥ 26 mm; HM1: 26 mm ≤ AL < 28 mm; HM2: AL ≥ 28 mm
Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or proportion
aStudent’s t-test or χ2 test, difference between control group and HM group
bStudent’s t-test or χ2 test, difference between two HM subgroups
cSignificant (P < 0.05)