PURPOSE: To evaluate the uveal and capsular biocompatibility of 3 types of sharp-edged foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Eighty-five eyes with PEX had implantation of 1 of the following sharp-edged 3-piece IOLs: hydrophilic acrylic (Injectacryl F3000, OphthalMed), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof MA60MB, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, AMO). Postoperative evaluation (flare, cellular reaction, and capsular reaction) was performed at 1, 3, and 7 days as well as 1, 3, 6, and 12 to 18 months. RESULTS: One year after surgery, flare was comparable between the IOLs. In terms of uveal biocompatibility, whereas the Injectacryl had the highest deposition of debris on the IOL surface (P = .04), the CeeOn 911 had significantly more small round cells in the first 6 months (P<.03). The AcrySof had the highest number of foreign-body giant cells (P = .01). In terms of capsular biocompatibility, lens epithelial cell outgrowth was highest in the AcrySof group (P<.02). Anterior capsule opacification was comparable between the 3 groups. Posterior capsule opacification was mild in all groups but was significantly greater in the Injectacryl group (P<.05). There were no cases of clinically significant IOL decentration or capsule contraction. CONCLUSIONS: In general, inflammatory cells accumulated more easily on hydrophobic IOLs than on hydrophilic IOLs; the AcrySof IOL had the highest prevalence of foreign-body giant cells. All 3 IOLs had good biocompatibility, although the AcrySof group had increased inflammatory signs.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the uveal and capsular biocompatibility of 3 types of sharp-edged foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Eighty-five eyes with PEX had implantation of 1 of the following sharp-edged 3-piece IOLs: hydrophilic acrylic (Injectacryl F3000, OphthalMed), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof MA60MB, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, AMO). Postoperative evaluation (flare, cellular reaction, and capsular reaction) was performed at 1, 3, and 7 days as well as 1, 3, 6, and 12 to 18 months. RESULTS: One year after surgery, flare was comparable between the IOLs. In terms of uveal biocompatibility, whereas the Injectacryl had the highest deposition of debris on the IOL surface (P = .04), the CeeOn 911 had significantly more small round cells in the first 6 months (P<.03). The AcrySof had the highest number of foreign-body giant cells (P = .01). In terms of capsular biocompatibility, lens epithelial cell outgrowth was highest in the AcrySof group (P<.02). Anterior capsule opacification was comparable between the 3 groups. Posterior capsule opacification was mild in all groups but was significantly greater in the Injectacryl group (P<.05). There were no cases of clinically significant IOL decentration or capsule contraction. CONCLUSIONS: In general, inflammatory cells accumulated more easily on hydrophobic IOLs than on hydrophilic IOLs; the AcrySof IOL had the highest prevalence of foreign-body giant cells. All 3 IOLs had good biocompatibility, although the AcrySof group had increased inflammatory signs.