A cleaning solution for silicone intraocular lenses: "sticky silicone oil".

AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of perfluorobutylpentane (F4H5) and perfluorohexyloctane (F6H8) in dissolving silicone oil from the surface of silicone intraocular lenses (IOL). METHODS: Droplets of stained silicone oil were applied to an object slide either lying flat or tilted by 30 degrees . Mixing with H(2)O, F4H5 or F6H8 was documented by a digital camera. Droplets of silicone oil were applied to silicone lenses and washed off by repeated rinsing with F4H5 or F6H8. The silicone lenses of 11 patients with silicone oil remnants on the posterior IOL surface were rinsed intraoperatively with F4H5 during removal surgery. RESULTS: Only F4H5 was able to mix with silicone oil and to remove it form the surface of a glass object slides. Rinsing with 25 mul F4H5 reduced the amount of silicone oil 1000 mPas or 5000 mPas attached on a silicone lens to 15% and 28%, respectively. A hanging droplet of silicone oil 5000 beneath a silicone lens was completely removed from below by F4H5. In all patients sufficient IOL cleaning was possible using F4H5. There was no significant postoperative inflammation in the vitreous or anterior chamber. CONCLUSION: Polydimethylsiloxanes dissolve effectively in F4H5 due to its lipophilic chemical structure. A much smaller volume of F4H5 than F6H8 is able to remove silicone oil from silicone lenses completely. Intraocular use of F4H5 is safe, and initial clinical data underlines its effectiveness as a cleaning agent after contact of silicone lenses with silicone oil.

Lesions of nucleus accumbens reduce instrumental but not consummatory negative contrast in rats.

In Experiment 1, rats provided with brief daily access to 4% sucrose which preceded brief access to 32% sucrose (4-32) suppressed licking the 4% solution relative to 4-4 controls. This anticipatory negative contrast (ANC) was diminished when the 32% solution was downshifted to 4%. Licking the second 4% solution in shifted rats (4-32-4) was lower than licking of the second 4% solution in 4-4 control rats - a successive negative contrast (SNC) effect. Neither SNC nor ANC or their recovery were influenced by electrolytic lesions of the nucleus accumbens (NAC). Latency to initiate licking followed a concentration function, with rats initiating licking faster for 32 than 4% sucrose, but was not affected by the lesion. In Experiment 2, rats showed clear SNC in consummatory behavior when shifted from 32 to 4% sucrose and also showed SNC in running speed when shifted from a 12- to 1-pellet reward in a straight runway. As in Experiment 1, consummatory SNC was not affected by the lesion. However, in the runway, lesioned animals showed contrast later (after more trials) than the sham-lesioned rats and did not show contrast in the goal section, when goal speed was averaged across the postshift period. Reward downshift also increased the animals' tendency to backtrack in the runway and backtracking was greater in the lesioned rats during both the preshift and postshift periods. These data suggest that the NAC is not a necessary structure for the generation of expectancies, the comparison of rewards or the modulation of ingestive behavior. However, the NAC may be involved in responding to unmet expectancies when the task involves approach or instrumental behavior.