Uveal and capsular biocompatibility after implantation of sharp-edged hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome.

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.

Lens epithelial cell ongrowth: comparison of 6 types of hydrophilic intraocular lens models.

PURPOSE: To compare the ongrowth of lens epithelial cells (LECs) on the anterior surface of 6 different hydrophilic intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Medical University of Vienna, Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Six models of hydrophilic IOLs were compared in this prospective study: Visionflex A-100 (Distra Softcryl), Rayner Centerflex 570H (Rayner), Collamer CC4204BF-IOL (Staar), Injectacryl F 3000 (Distra), Hydroview H60M (Bausch & Lomb), and MemoryLens (ORC). Postoperative biomicroscopic examinations were performed 1, 3, 7, 30, 90, 180, and 365 days after surgery. Lens epithelial cells in each quadrant of the anterior capsule-free lens surface were graded. The product with the highest density and the number of quadrants with this density were used to measure LEC ongrowth. RESULTS: The Hydroview and Visionflex IOLs showed significantly more LECs than the other IOLs starting on day 7 after surgery (P < .028). There was a statistically significant difference in LEC ongrowth on the Memory IOL compared with all other IOLs from day 30 onward (P < .001). The Rayner, Collamer and Injectacryl IOLs had the fewest LECs on the anterior surface compared with all other IOLs from day 7 until the final examination. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that LEC ongrowth on the IOL surface is material dependent. The findings suggest that the material of the recently developed hydrophilic IOLs induces less LEC ongrowth than older models.

Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of a single-piece, sharp-edged hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens with collagen (Collamer): 1-year results.

PURPOSE: To analyze uveal and capsular biocompatibility 1 year following implantation of a sharp-edged, hydrophilic, collagen-containing posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna Medical School, Vienna, Austria. METHOD: In a prospective study, a Collamer CC4204BF IOL was implanted in 30 eyes of patients with senile cataract. A standardized surgical technique and postoperative regimen were applied. To assess uveal biocompatibility, cellular inflammation on the anterior IOL surface was evaluated with a specular microscope. Capsular biocompatibility was registered semiquantitatively with a biomicroscope, based on an assessment of fibrosis on the anterior and posterior capsules. Tyndall values were measured with the Kowa FC-1000 laser flare-cell meter. Decentration of the lens was also registered. RESULTS: One year after implantation, the values of flare and cell count in the anterior chamber were lower than preoperatively. Round and spindle-shaped, epithelioid, and foreign-body giant cells were not found on the anterior surface of the IOL. The capsulorhexis rim was moderately fibrosed in 56.6% of cases. Fibrosis of the capsule over the optic was also moderate in 36.6%. The central portion of the posterior capsule was devoid of fibrosis in 43.3% and mildly fibrosed in 50%. Three lenses revealed outgrowth of lens epithelial cells to the anterior surface of the IOL. A neodymium:YAG capsulotomy had to be performed in 1 case. All lenses were well centered in the capsular bag 1 year after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of inflammatory cells on the anterior surface of the IOL indicates the high uveal biocompatibility of the lens. In terms of capsular biocompatibility, the results were satisfactory.

Bacterial adhesion to rigid and foldable posterior chamber intraocular lenses: in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To determine the in vitro bacterial adherence to intraocular lenses (IOLs) routinely used at 1 center. SETTING: University Hospital of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Four types of rigid IOLs (hydrophobic poly[methyl methacrylate] [PMMA] and hydrophilic heparin-surface-modified PMMA) and 5 types of foldable intraocular lenses (hydrophobic silicone, hydrophobic acrylic, and hydrophilic acrylic) were used in the experiment. Under standardized conditions, the IOLs were contaminated with 2 strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. A sonication method and impression method were used for quantification. The mean bacterial density per lens type (colony forming units/mm(2)) was compared. RESULTS: With both germs and both quantification methods, more bacteria was found on hydrophobic lenses than on IOLs with hydrophilic surfaces (P =.001). The Alcon AcrySof and Askin UV80F IOLs had the greatest and the Corneal Acrygel and Bausch & Lomb Hydroview IOLs the least affinity to these microorganisms. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that hydrophilic IOLs can help reduce the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis as a result of their surface properties.

Results of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in uveitic eyes with cataract: comparison to a control group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitis. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 72 eyes with uveitis and 68 control eyes having phacoemulsification and IOL implantation by 1 surgeon. Patients received 1 of the following IOLs: foldable hydrophilic acrylic (Hydroview, Bausch & Lomb), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, Pharmacia). Postoperative evaluations were at 1, 3, and 7 days and 1, 3, and 6 months. Cell reaction was evaluated by specular microscopy of the anterior IOL surface and the anterior and posterior capsule reaction, by biomicroscopy. RESULTS: Small round cell deposition was observed on all IOLs in the immediate postoperative period, especially in eyes with uveitis. This reaction decreased 3 to 6 months after surgery. Although the CeeOn 911 had a higher mean grade of small cells, there was no statistical difference between the 3 IOL types after 6 months in the uveitis and control groups. Foreign-body giant cells (FBGCs) increased after 1 week to 1 month. The AcrySof IOLs had the highest number of FBGCs; after 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference between the AcrySof and Hydroview uveitis groups (P =.036) and the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 uveitis groups (P =.003) but there was no difference among the 3 IOL types in the control group. Lens epithelial cell outgrowth persisted on the Hydroview IOLs in control eyes and regressed on all 3 IOL types in uveitic eyes and on the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 IOLs in control eyes (P =.0001). Anterior capsule opacification (ACO) was more severe on all IOL types in uveitic eyes and on the CeeOn 911 IOL in control eyes. Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was more severe in uveitic eyes. The Hydroview group had more severe PCO than the AcrySof and the CeeOn 911 groups in uveitis and control eyes. Six months postoperatively, the difference was significant (P =.0001). There was no significant difference between the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 IOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Intraocular lens biocompatibility is inversely related to inflammation. Hydrophilic acrylic material had good uveal but worse capsular biocompatibility. Hydrophobic acrylic material had lower uveal but better capsular biocompatibility. Silicone showed a higher small cell count (mild) and more severe ACO but achieved PCO results comparable to FBGC results and better than those with the AcrySof lens 6 months after surgery. Despite the differences in IOL biocompatibility, all patients benefited from the surgery.

Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of 2 foldable acrylic intraocular lenses in patients with uveitis or pseudoexfoliation syndrome: comparison to a control group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic (Hydroview) and hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof) intraocular lenses (IOLs) after phacoemulsification in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) or uveitis and compare the results with those in a control group. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized comparative trial comprised 143 eyes recruited consecutively. Of these, 49 eyes had PEX, 43 had uveitis, and 51 served as controls. A standardized surgical protocol was used. Cell reaction, anterior (ACO) and posterior (PCO) capsule opacification, and flare were evaluated 1 year after cataract surgery. RESULTS: Regarding uveal biocompatibility, the number of foreign-body giant cells (FBGCs) increased in proportion to associated ocular pathologies in both IOL groups. The difference between the Hydroview control and Hydroview uveitis groups was statistically significant. The number of FBGCs was greater on AcrySof IOLs than on Hydroview IOLs in all 3 groups. The difference in FBGCs between the 2 IOL types was statistically significant in the control and PEX groups. Regarding capsular biocompatibility, lens epithelial cell (LEC) outgrowth was inversely correlated with intraocular inflammation. Outgrowth was statistically significantly higher with Hydroview IOLs, occurring in 85% in the control group, 45% in the PEX group, and 28% in the uveitis group (P <.0001). With AcrySof lenses, the percentages were 0%, 8%, and 4%, respectively. The PEX and uveitis groups were more likely to develop ACO than the control group (P <.012). There was no statistically significant difference in ACO between the 2 IOL types in the 3 patient groups. The PCO was statistically significantly greater in the uveitis group than in the control group (P <.026) and statistically significantly more dense on Hydroview than on AcrySof IOLs in all 3 patient groups (P <.002). Flare was statistically significantly higher in the uveitis group than in the PEX and control groups with both IOL types (P <.012). There was no statistically significant difference in flare between the 2 IOL types. CONCLUSIONS: Uveal and capsular biocompatibility depends on the intensity of ocular inflammation. The greater the inflammation, the less the biocompatibility of hydrophilic and hydrophobic acrylic materials. AcrySof stimulated more FBGCs. The Hydroview material had better uveal but poorer capsular biocompatibility than AcrySof. The sharp optic edge effect of the AcrySof IOL and the advantages of the Hydroview lens in normal eyes are less apparent in compromised eyes.

Inflammation after implantation of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, or silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with cataract and uveitis: comparison to a control group.

PURPOSE: To compare the course of inflammation after small-incision cataract surgery with implantation of 1 of 3 types of foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitis. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: Seventy-four eyes with uveitis and cataract and 68 control eyes with cataract were prospectively selected to receive a foldable hydrophilic acrylic (Hydroview, Bausch & Lomb), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, Pharmacia) IOL. All surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a standardized protocol: clear corneal incision, capsulorhexis, phacoemulsification, and in-the-bag IOL implantation. Preoperative and postoperative inflammation was evaluated by measuring aqueous flare preoperatively and 1, 3, 7, 28, 90, and 180 days after surgery using the Kowa FC-1000 laser flare-cell meter. All uveitic eyes were in remission for at least 3 months before surgery. RESULTS: In the uveitic eyes, there was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative course of flare and cell among the 3 IOL groups. Six months after surgery in uveitic eyes, flare values reached preoperative levels and the cell count was lower than preoperatively in all 3 IOL groups. Relative flare values were higher in the eyes with uveitis and a CeeOn 911 IOL; however, the difference between this group and the 2 acrylic IOL groups was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in inflammation after implantation of foldable IOLs in uveitic eyes. Although absolute flare values and cell counts in eyes with uveitis were higher than in control eyes, primarily because of a damaged blood-aqueous barrier (BAB), BAB recovery was similar between the 2 groups. The changes in the BAB indicate that foldable IOL implantation is safe in uveitic eyes.

Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term response of 6 types of 3-piece intraocular lenses (IOLs) by assessing the cellular reaction on the anterior IOL surface, the behavior of posterior and anterior capsule fibrosis, and flare. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical School, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: One hundred eighty eyes were prospectively randomized to receive 1 of 6 IOLs: hydrophilic acrylic Hydroview (Bausch & Lomb) or MemoryLens (ORC); hydrophobic acrylic AcrySof MA60BM (Alcon) or AMO Sensar AR40 (Allergan); hydrophobic silicone CeeOn 920 or CeeOn 911A (Pharmacia). The patients had standardized cataract surgery, postoperative medication, and follow-up. One year after surgery, 155 eyes were assessed. The cellular reaction was evaluated by specular microscopy of the anterior IOL surface. Anterior and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was assessed semiquantitatively by biomicroscopy. Flare was measured with a Kowa FC-1000 laser flare-cell meter. RESULTS: Regarding uveal biocompatibility, the hydrophobic acrylic IOLs showed the highest incidence of late foreign-body cell reaction (AcrySof, 30%; AR40, 17%) followed by the hydrophilic acrylic (MemoryLens, 8%; Hydroview, 4%) and silicone (CeeOn 920, 4%; CeeOn 911A, 0%) (P =.0044). In all cases, the cellular reaction was low grade and clinically insignificant. Regarding capsular biocompatibility, some eyes developed lens epithelial cell (LEC) outgrowth on the anterior IOL surface. The highest incidence was in the hydrophilic acrylic group (Hydroview, 85%; MemoryLens, 27%) followed by the hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, 4%; AR40, 3%). No silicone IOL had LECs on the anterior surface. The difference among IOL groups was significant (P =.0001). Anterior capsule opacification was more predominant in the hydrophobic IOL groups. Posterior capsule opacification of the central 3.0 mm area was lowest in the groups with a sharp-edged optic (CeeOn 911A, AcrySof) followed by the round-edged silicone (CeeOn 920), hydrophobic acrylic (AR40), and hydrophilic acrylic IOLs (P =.0001). There was a significant difference in flare between the AR40 lens and the Hydroview, MemoryLens, CeeOn 911A, and CeeOn 920 (P <.004). There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative cell count at 1 year. The power calculation showed that the sample size was sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in cellular reaction, although clinically mild in normal eyes, indicate that there were more giant cells with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs and an increased tendency toward LEC outgrowth with hydrophilic lenses. The incidence of PCO was lowest in the hydrophobic IOL groups, especially in groups with a sharp-edged optic. Second-generation silicone IOLs with a sharp edge had good uveal and capsular biocompatibility 1 year after surgery.

Effect of heparin in the irrigation solution on postoperative inflammation and cellular reaction on the intraocular lens surface.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of heparin sodium in the irrigation solution on postoperative inflammation and cellular reaction on the anterior surface of a hydrophilic intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. METHODS: This randomized prospective single-surgeon study included 50 patients with senile cataract only. Half the patients received 1 mL of heparin sodium (concentration 10 IU/mL) in addition to the regular irrigating solution. In all other respects, the procedure was standardized: clear corneal incision, phacoemulsification, and implantation of a Hydroview foldable hydrogel IOL (Bausch & Lomb). The parameters of inflammation-anterior chamber flare and cells-were evaluated with the pupil dilated in a masked fashion using a Kowa FC-1000 laser flare-cell meter 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days and 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The cellular reaction was semiquantitatively examined and analyzed by specular microscopy. RESULTS: In both groups, flare and cell values increased on the first postoperative day and successively decreased thereafter. In the first week, the flare and cell values were significantly higher in the group without heparin sodium in the irrigating solution. Subsequently, there were no differences between the 2 groups in flare or cells. At 1 day, the heparin sodium group had statistically significantly fewer IOLs with no cells on the surface. Subsequently, no differences in cellular reaction on the IOL were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Heparin sodium added to the standard irrigating solution reduced disturbances of the blood-aqueous barrier in the early postoperative period. There seemed to be no long-term effect, especially on cellular reaction, on the hydrophilic IOL surface.