Anterior capsule opacification: correlation of pathologic findings with clinical sequelae

Loop memory of haptic materials in posterior chamber intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the shape recovery ratios after compression of haptic materials used in the manufacture of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

Center for Research on Ocular Therapeutics and Biodevices, Storm Eye Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

METHODS

The loop memory of 40 silicone-optic posterior chamber IOLs was studied. All the IOLs had modified-C haptics made of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA; n = 10), polyimide (n = 10), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF; n = 10), and polypropylene (PP; n = 10). After the overall diameter of each lens was measured (day 0), the lenses were inserted into plastic wells (9.5 mm in diameter) and immersed in water (37 degrees C) for 1 month. They were then placed on an open plate and allowed to reexpand for 2 months. Overall diameter measurements were performed within 5 minutes of the IOLs' removal from the wells and at subsequent time points (days 14, 28, 30, 60, 74, 88, and 95).

RESULTS

The loop memory of each lens was expressed as the difference between the initial overall diameter measurement (pretest) and the measurement at each time point; the lower the value, the higher the memory. The overall difference among the 4 groups was statistically significant at each time point (P < or = .001). From days 30 to 95, silicone-PMMA, silicone-elastimide, and silicone-PVDF IOLs had similar loop memory mean values, which were significantly lower than the mean value of silicone-PP IOLs (P <.05). The latter design tended to be deformed after removal from the wells, with increased optic-haptic angulation.

CONCLUSION

Studying the loop memory of haptic materials (PMMA, polyimide, PVDF, and PP) used in the manufacture of posterior chamber IOLs can help surgeons choose an appropriate IOL for each patient.

Post cataract-intraocular lens (IOL) surgery opacification

Intraocular lens (IOL) implantation has no doubt been one of the most satisfying advances of medicine. Millions of individuals with visual disability or frank blindness from cataracts had and continue to have benefit from this procedure. It has been reported by ophthalmologists that the modern cataract-intraocular lens (IOL) surgery is safe and complication-free most of the time. This makes the watchword for any cataract surgeon to be 'implantation,' 'implantation,' 'implantation.' In the mid-1980s, as IOLs were evolving rapidly, the watchword of the implant surgeon was 'fixation,' 'fixation,' 'fixation.' Most techniques, lenses and surgical adjuncts now allow us to achieve the basic requirement for successful IOL implantation, namely long-term stable IOL fixation in the capsular bag. However despite this advancement some items 'slipped through cracks.' In this article, we would like to alert the reader to a new watchword, namely 'opacification,' 'opacification,' 'opacification.' Here we will be talking about the good, the bad, and the ugly. Examples of the 'good' include the recent successes now being achieved in reducing the incidence of posterior capsule opacification. Examples of the 'bad' include various proliferations of anterior capsule cells, problems caused by silicone oil adherence to IOLs and problems with piggyback IOLs. The 'ugly' include the sometimes striking and often visually disabling opacifications occurring on and within IOL optics, both on some modern foldable IOLs as well as a poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) optic degradation occurring with some models a decade or more after implantation.