C W Faschinger1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate abnormalities on the surface of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) that were implanted using an injector. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria. METHODS: This study comprised 70 eyes having phacoemulsification and implantation of an EasAcryl (n = 50) or Inject-A (n = 20) IOL. Both hydrophilic IOLs are biconvex and have a high water content (26%), plate-haptic design, and no angulation. The IOLs were folded in a cartridge under hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and implanted by an injector. RESULTS: Thirteen EasAcryl and 5 Inject-A IOLs had multiple white lines in the direction of the longitudinal axis on the posterior surface immediately after implantation. On 1 EasAcryl IOL, the white lines were separated by a clear central zone and were on the anterior surface. Another EasAcryl IOL had a 1.0 mm crack. CONCLUSIONS: The abnormalities on the posterior surface of high-water-content hydrophilic acrylic IOLs disappeared or were almost gone within 1 month postoperatively and do not appear to be a concern for surgeons. These abnormalities are likely the result of the IOLs' hydrophilicity and high water content and friction in the injector barrel.
PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate abnormalities on the surface of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) that were implanted using an injector. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria. METHODS: This study comprised 70 eyes having phacoemulsification and implantation of an EasAcryl (n = 50) or Inject-A (n = 20) IOL. Both hydrophilic IOLs are biconvex and have a high water content (26%), plate-haptic design, and no angulation. The IOLs were folded in a cartridge under hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and implanted by an injector. RESULTS: Thirteen EasAcryl and 5 Inject-A IOLs had multiple white lines in the direction of the longitudinal axis on the posterior surface immediately after implantation. On 1 EasAcryl IOL, the white lines were separated by a clear central zone and were on the anterior surface. Another EasAcryl IOL had a 1.0 mm crack. CONCLUSIONS: The abnormalities on the posterior surface of high-water-content hydrophilic acrylic IOLs disappeared or were almost gone within 1 month postoperatively and do not appear to be a concern for surgeons. These abnormalities are likely the result of the IOLs' hydrophilicity and high water content and friction in the injector barrel.
Authors: Daniel Black; Dean Corbett; Timothy V Roberts; Brendan Cronin; Pamela J Smith; D Priya Janakiraman; Beth E Jackson Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-12