This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (69)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cataracts/ Lens  • Intraocular Lenses  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Can Increased Biocompatibility Have Disadvantages?

Emma J. Hollick, BA, FRCOphth; David J. Spalton, FRCP, FRCS, FRCOphth; Paul G. Ursell, FRCOphth

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:872-878.

Objective  To compare the anterior surface cytologic features and effect on blood-aqueous barrier of polymethyl methacrylate, silicone, and hydrogel intraocular lens (IOL) implants to give an indication of their biocompatibility.

Methods  This prospective study was performed at an English-teaching hospital. Ninety eyes were randomized to receive a polymethyl methacrylate, silicone, or hydrogel implant. A standardized surgical protocol was performed by a single surgeon using phacoemulsification. Patients were seen at intervals for 1 year. Measurements of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and anterior chamber laser flare and cells were obtained; and an assessment of lens cytologic features using specular microscopy of the anterior IOL surface was performed.

Results  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were not significantly different among the 3 groups. Hydrogel IOLs were associated with fewer inflammatory cells on their surface than polymethyl methacrylate and silicone IOLs (P<.001), but with significantly more lens epithelial cells (LECs) (P<.001). Patients with hydrogel implants without LECs had greater blood-aqueous barrier breakdown than those with LECs.

Conclusions  The hydrogel IOLs were associated with a reduced inflammatory cell reaction but had many more LECs on their anterior surface. Those IOLs associated with increased blood-aqueous barrier damage did not develop LECs. If an IOL is too biocompatible, then it may incite the growth of LECs over its surface, which could have disadvantages.

From the Department of Ophthalmology, St Thomas' Hospital, London, England. None of the authors has a commercial or proprietary interest in any of the products discussed in this article.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Ophthalmology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(7):993-994.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Posterior Capsular Opacification: A Problem Reduced but Not Yet Eradicated
Awasthi et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:555-562.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Single versus three piece acrylic IOLs
Chang
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:727-728.
FULL TEXT  

Posterior capsule opacification after implantation of a hydrogel intraocular lens
Hayashi and Hayashi
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:182-185.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Anterior capsule contraction and intraocular lens decentration and tilt after hydrogel lens implantation
Hayashi et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:1294-1297.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT