PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of 2 foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) with sharp optic edges in terms of uveal and capsular biocompatibility. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Fifty eyes scheduled for cataract surgery were included in this comparative study. A standardized surgical protocol was used, and all operations were performed by 1 experienced surgeon. Two posterior chamber lens types of similar design with a 6.0 mm sharp-edged optic and poly(methyl methacrylate) haptics were used. Twenty-five eyes received an AcrySof acrylic IOL (Alcon), and 25 eyes received a CeeOn 911A silicone IOL (Pharmacia). Relevant data were collected at a 3-year follow-up examination. To evaluate uveal biocompatibility, anterior chamber laser flare and cell measurements and inflammatory cell reactions were monitored. Cellular biocompatibility was investigated by examining anterior capsule opacification (ACO), posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and lens epithelial cell (LEC) ongrowth on the IOL's anterior surface. Factors such as intralenticular glistenings and IOL decentration were also evaluated. RESULTS: Anterior chamber flare and cells and the inflammatory cell reaction were significantly lower in the CeeOn 911A group. There was no statistically significant difference in ACO, PCO, and LEC ongrowth between the 2 groups. The AcrySof lenses showed significantly better centration and a higher density of intralenticular glistening. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that a sharp-edged optic design is, to date, the most effective method of reducing the rate of PCO. Despite a subclinical foreign-body reaction in the AcrySof group, both lenses had a high degree of capsular and uveal biocompatibility.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of 2 foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) with sharp optic edges in terms of uveal and capsular biocompatibility. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Fifty eyes scheduled for cataract surgery were included in this comparative study. A standardized surgical protocol was used, and all operations were performed by 1 experienced surgeon. Two posterior chamber lens types of similar design with a 6.0 mm sharp-edged optic and poly(methyl methacrylate) haptics were used. Twenty-five eyes received an AcrySof acrylic IOL (Alcon), and 25 eyes received a CeeOn 911Asilicone IOL (Pharmacia). Relevant data were collected at a 3-year follow-up examination. To evaluate uveal biocompatibility, anterior chamber laser flare and cell measurements and inflammatory cell reactions were monitored. Cellular biocompatibility was investigated by examining anterior capsule opacification (ACO), posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and lens epithelial cell (LEC) ongrowth on the IOL's anterior surface. Factors such as intralenticular glistenings and IOL decentration were also evaluated. RESULTS: Anterior chamber flare and cells and the inflammatory cell reaction were significantly lower in the CeeOn 911A group. There was no statistically significant difference in ACO, PCO, and LEC ongrowth between the 2 groups. The AcrySof lenses showed significantly better centration and a higher density of intralenticular glistening. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that a sharp-edged optic design is, to date, the most effective method of reducing the rate of PCO. Despite a subclinical foreign-body reaction in the AcrySof group, both lenses had a high degree of capsular and uveal biocompatibility.