Literature DB >> 31399323

Evaluation of clarity characteristics in a new hydrophobic acrylic IOL in comparison to commercially available IOLs.

Liliana Werner1, Israwal Thatthamla2, Marcia Ong2, Hillary Schatz2, Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez3, Juan Gros-Otero4, Rafael Cañones-Zafra5, Miguel A Teus5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To perform in vitro assessments of surface haze and roughness, subsurface nanoglistenings (SSNGs), and glistenings of a new hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) in comparison to commercially available IOLs.
SETTING: Universities of Utah and Alcalá, and Alcon Vision, LLC.
DESIGN: Experimental study.
METHODS: The IOLs used were Clareon CNA0T0, Tecnis ZCB00 and Tecnis OptiBlue ZCB00V, Eternity W-60, enVista MX60, and Vivinex XY1. Surface haze was assessed by the pixel intensity units (PIU) from cross-sectional slitlamp images, and it was correlated to atomic force microscopy roughness. For SSNGs, the IOLs were artificially aged up to 10 years, followed by Scheimpflug densitometry (computer-compatible tape unit [CCTU]) measurements. For glistenings, the IOLs were immersed in a water bath and subjected to temperature changes before analysis.
RESULTS: The surface haze (n = 10, PIU) was 4.25 ± 0.87 (SD) (CNA0T0), 9.50 ± 1.66 (ZCB00), 39.48 ± 1.97 (ZCB00V), 46.68 ± 3.16 (W-60), 44.70 ± 4.00 (MX60), and 4.42 ± 0.71 (XY1) (P < .001), which showed a strong correlation with surface roughness measurements (R = 0.94, P = .006). The densitometry (n = 10, CCTU at 10 years) was 7.30 ± 1.36 (CNA0T0), 11.88 ± 3.10 (ZCB00), 38.12 ± 2.24 (ZCB00V), 48.13 ± 9.44 (W-60), 20.20 ± 3.84 (MX60), and 6.75 ± 6.66 (XY1) (P < .001), with no significant differences between CNA0T0 vs. ZCB00 and XY1. The glistenings density (n = 30) was the lowest for the CNA0T0, W-60, and MX60 IOLs.
CONCLUSIONS: The new Clareon CNA0T0, which is manufactured from a hydrophobic acrylic material, exhibited among the lowest levels of surface haze and roughness, SSNGs, and glistenings compared with other commercially available hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.
Copyright © 2019 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31399323     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.05.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  10 in total

1.  IOLs glistenings and quality of vision.

Authors:  Andrzej Grzybowski; Piotr Kanclerz; George H H Beiko
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-19       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Predictive accuracy of an intraoperative aberrometry device for a new monofocal intraocular lens.

Authors:  Lindsay S Spekreijse; Noel J C Bauer; Frank J H M van den Biggelaar; Rob W P Simons; Claudette A Veldhuizen; Tos T J M Berendschot; Rudy M M A Nuijts
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Quantitative evaluation of microvacuole formation in five intraocular lens models made of different hydrophobic materials.

Authors:  Timur M Yildirim; Sonja K Schickhardt; Qiang Wang; Elfriede Friedmann; Ramin Khoramnia; Gerd U Auffarth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Effectiveness and Safety of the Clareon Monofocal Intraocular Lens: Outcomes from a 12-Month Single-Arm Clinical Study in a Large Sample.

Authors:  Robert Lehmann; Andrew Maxwell; David M Lubeck; Raymond Fong; Thomas R Walters; Anna Fakadej
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04-20

5.  Comparison Between L-312 Hydrophobic-Hydrophilic Acrylate and US-860 UV Hydrophilic Acrylate IOL Opacification Characteristic.

Authors:  Jin Xie; Jie Sun; Ting Liu; Shilan Mao; Yunhai Dai
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-08

6.  Clinical outcomes of new multifocal intraocular lenses with hydroxyethyl methacrylate and comparative results of contrast sensitivity, objective scatter, and subjective photic phenomena.

Authors:  Yong Woo Lee; Chul Young Choi; Kun Moon; Yong Jin Jeong; Sang Il An; Je Myung Lee; Jong Ho Lee; Min Cheol Seong
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 2.086

7.  Analysis of YAG Laser-Induced Damage in Intraocular Lenses: Characterization of Optical and Surface Properties of YAG Shots.

Authors:  Andreas F Borkenstein; Eva-Maria Borkenstein
Journal:  Ophthalmic Res       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 2.892

8.  Refractive stability of a new single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens and corneal wound repair after implantation using a new automated intraocular lens delivery system.

Authors:  Kazuno Negishi; Sachiko Masui; Hidemasa Torii; Yasuyo Nishi; Kazuo Tsubota
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Atomic force microscopy comparative analysis of the surface roughness of two posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens models: ICL versus IPCL.

Authors:  Juan Gros-Otero; Samira Ketabi; Rafael Cañones-Zafra; Montserrat Garcia-Gonzalez; Cesar Villa-Collar; Santiago Casado; Miguel A Teus
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 2.209

10.  One-year multicenter evaluation of a new hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens with hydroxyethyl methacrylate in an automated preloaded delivery system.

Authors:  Tetsuro Oshika; Noriyuki Sasaki
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.528

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.