Posters

Comparative analysis of the implantation behavior of different hydrophobic intraocular lenses with preloaded and conventional IOL delivery systems

Poster Details

First Author: P. Merz GERMANY

Co Author(s):    C. Choi   B. Giers   G. Auffarth              

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To evaluate unfolding characteristics of hydrophobic intraocular lenses implanted via preloaded or conventional IOL delivery systems that require manual loading of the IOL.

Setting:

International Vision Correction Research Centre (IVCRC), Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Methods:

In this prospective interventional case study 88 implantations of different hydrophobic lenses (Alcon: SN60WF/CWS – AcrySert system, AMO - PCB00/Tecnis – i-Tec system, Hoya: Vivinex XY1 - iSert system and Zeiss: CT Lucia 601P – Accuject system) were recorded and implantation behavior was evaluated statistically in terms of smooth unfolding and implantation duration.

Results:

All intraocular lenses could be implanted without complications. Unfolding time ranged from 30 sec. to 120 sec. Several hydrophobic lenses presented with adhesions of the haptics to the anterior or in some cases even the posterior surface of the optic. Stickiness was different between the different types of hydrophobic materials. No damage to optics or haptics due to the implantation process occurred. All cartridges were analyzed using light microscopy and in some cases during IOL delivery damage of the nozzle of the cartridge occurred.

Conclusions:

Implantation and unfolding behavior among hydrophobic intraocular lenses revealed large variability. Haptic adhesions to the optic can be of clinical significance, especially in complicated cases.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company