AIM: To evaluate the outcome of surface deposits that occurred during implantation of hydrophylic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) through a hexagonal cartridge. METHODS: Surface deposits were observed on the posterior surface of the ACR6D SE IOLs that were injected through a hexagonal cartridge filled with sodium hyaluronate 1%. All the patients were examined 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The location of the deposits was recorded and photographed. The patients were questioned about blurred vision, glare or halos. RESULTS: Linear or curly deposits were detected on the posterior surface of the IOL in six patients. In four patients, the deposits were peripheral and were observed 1 week postoperatively. In two patients, the deposits were noticed immediately after implantation. In one eye, they were misinterpreted as a crack in the IOL's optic and were left in the eye. In the second patient the deposits were removed immediately after implantation with forceps. The deposits that were left after implantation (five eyes) did not resolve during 1 year of follow-up. None of the eyes developed abnormal inflammatory reaction. In three eyes the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 6/6. In the other three eyes the BCVA was 6/12. None of the patients experienced any visual disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the ACR6D SE IOL through a hexagonal cartridge can lead to the formation of deposits on the posterior surface of the lens. The deposits do not resolve and may resemble a crack in the IOL. The deposits left on the IOL had no clinical relevance in our patients.
AIM: To evaluate the outcome of surface deposits that occurred during implantation of hydrophylic acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) through a hexagonal cartridge. METHODS: Surface deposits were observed on the posterior surface of the ACR6D SE IOLs that were injected through a hexagonal cartridge filled with sodium hyaluronate 1%. All the patients were examined 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The location of the deposits was recorded and photographed. The patients were questioned about blurred vision, glare or halos. RESULTS: Linear or curly deposits were detected on the posterior surface of the IOL in six patients. In four patients, the deposits were peripheral and were observed 1 week postoperatively. In two patients, the deposits were noticed immediately after implantation. In one eye, they were misinterpreted as a crack in the IOL's optic and were left in the eye. In the second patient the deposits were removed immediately after implantation with forceps. The deposits that were left after implantation (five eyes) did not resolve during 1 year of follow-up. None of the eyes developed abnormal inflammatory reaction. In three eyes the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 6/6. In the other three eyes the BCVA was 6/12. None of the patients experienced any visual disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the ACR6D SE IOL through a hexagonal cartridge can lead to the formation of deposits on the posterior surface of the lens. The deposits do not resolve and may resemble a crack in the IOL. The deposits left on the IOL had no clinical relevance in our patients.