Posters

Assessment of corneal incision enlargement of a new automated preloaded IOL delivery system

Poster Details

First Author: T.Kohnen GERMANY

Co Author(s): P. Wolfe   A. Chernosky   V. Hernandez   S. Fisherkeller   F. Nguyen   J. Liu     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To comparatively evaluate the corneal incision enlargement and incision structure of AutonoMe, a new automated preloaded delivery system, to UltraSert, TECNIS iTec (iTec) and HOYA Vivinex™ iSert® (Vivinex) preloaded delivery systems.

Setting:

Goethe University, Department of Ophthalmology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Methods:

Sixteen (16) preloaded IOLs (20.0D-21.0D) per treatment group were implanted into the anterior chamber of human cadaver eyes through a 2.0 mm (Vivinex) or 2.2 mm (AutonoMe, UltraSert, and iTec) incision size. Pre- and post- delivery incision sizes were measured using ASICO incision gauges. OCT scans were also captured to evaluate any occurrence of Descemet’s membrane (DM) detachment. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the significance of differences between groups.

Results:

AutonoMe (0.29±0.03mm) and UltraSert (0.29±0.03mm) had the smallest average incision enlargement out of all groups, and with iTec (0.31±0.03mm), was smaller than Vivinex (0.36±0.06mm); p<0.01. iTec had more DM detachment (43.75%, 7 out of 16) compared to Vivinex (25.00%, 4 out of 16), UltraSert (12.50%, 2 out of 16) and AutonoMe (6.25%, 1 out of 16; p<0.05).

Conclusions:

The new AutonoMe preloaded delivery system provided the smallest incision enlargement and least amount of DM detachment compared to iTec, Vivinex and UltraSert. The automated delivery system design and depth-guard tip may facilitate IOL implantation through smaller incisions and less DM detachment.

Financial Disclosure:

... gains financially from competing product or procedure, ... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, ... travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, ... research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company, ... receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, ... is employed by a for-profit company with an interest in the subject of the presentation, ... is employed by a competing company, ... has significant investment interest in a competing company, ... has significant investment interest in a company producing, developing or supplying product or procedure presented, ... gains financially from product or procedure presented