Opacification of Array SA40N silicone multifocal intraocular lens

Visual and Refractive Outcomes Following Exchange of an Opacified Multifocal Intraocular Lens

Purpose

To assess the visual and refractive outcomes following exchange of an opacified multifocal intraocular lens (IOL).

Patients and Methods

A consecutive series of 37 eyes (31 patients) that underwent IOL exchange between November 2015 and May 2021 were included in this study. The indication for surgery in all cases was opacification of a multifocal IOL. Outcome measures included design and anatomical location of the secondary IOL, intraoperative and postoperative complications, visual acuity and refractive accuracy.

Results

An opacified Lentis Mplus multifocal IOL was explanted from all eyes and replaced with a monofocal IOL in 21 eyes (57%) and multifocal IOL in 16 eyes (43%). Secondary IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag or sulcus or were iris-fixated. IOL exchange was performed at a mean interval of 7 years after the primary surgery. Anterior vitrectomy was required for vitreous prolapse in 9 eyes (24%). Mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) postoperatively was −0.02 ± 0.08 logMAR for eyes with a monofocal secondary IOL and 0.02 ± 0.08 logMAR for eyes with a multifocal secondary IOL. Mean refractive prediction error was −0.57 ± 0.67 D in the multifocal-monofocal group and −0.33 ± 0.59 D in the multifocal–multifocal group.

Conclusion

An opacified multifocal IOL can be exchanged for a monofocal or multifocal IOL, depending on available capsular support and the patient’s desired refractive outcome. Vitreous prolapse requiring anterior vitrectomy is the most common intraoperative complication. An improvement in visual acuity and a low postoperative complication rate were achieved in this cohort of patients.

Clinical and material degradations of intraocular lenses: A review

PURPOSE

To review the published scientific literature concerning clinical and material degradations of intraocular lenses after implantation in cataract surgery.

METHODS

A search was undertaken using the following databases: CENTRAL (including Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; The Cochrane Library: Issue 2 of 12 February 2019), Ovid MEDLINE (R) without Revisions (1996 to February week 2, 2019), Ovid MEDLINE (R) (1946 to February week 2, 2019), Ovid MEDLINE (R) Daily Update 19 February 2019, MEDLINE and MEDLINE non-indexed items, Embase (1980-2019, week 7), Embase (1974-2019, 19 February), Ovid MEDLINE (R) and Epub Ahead of Print, in-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily (1946 to 19 February 2019), Web of Science (all years), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrial.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). Only published articles in English were selected. Search terms/keywords included 'IOL' or 'intraocular lens', combined with 'opacification', degradation, glistenings, nanoglistenings, whitening, transmittance, light scatter, discolouration/discoloration, performance, quality, material, biocompatibility, calcification, explantation and ultraviolet/UV radiation. Relevant in-article references not returned in our searches were also considered.

RESULTS

After review of the available articles, the authors included 122 publications in this review, based on the quality of their methodology and their originality. The studies included in this review were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies, case series, case reports, laboratory studies and review papers. Differing material degradations of intraocular lenses have been described and their associated pathophysiology studied. Reported anomalies include photochemical alterations, water vacuoles, internal and surface calcific deposits, surface coatings and discolouration. The nature of such changes has been shown to depend on the type of intraocular lenses material used and/or manufacturing processes and storage conditions employed. Changes in the intraocular lens can also be influenced by surgical technique, coexisting ocular pathologies and topical and systemic medications. The clinical significance of these degradations is variable, with some resulting in significant visual disturbance and the need for intraocular lens explantation and others producing only minimal visual impairments. Failure to recognize the precise nature of the problem may lead to unnecessary laser capsulotomy procedures.

CONCLUSION

Clinical degradations of intraocular lenses are uncommon but have been reported following the implantation of intraocular lenses made of differing biomaterials. Their correct identification and thorough investigation to determine the underlying cause is necessary for optimal patient management and the prevention of such problems. Choosing a lens made of a particular material may be important in patients with certain ocular conditions.

Early opacification and subsequent in vivo clearing of a silicone intraocular lens

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of early opacification and spontaneous in vivo clearing of a silicone intraocular lens (IOL).

METHODS

A 79-year-old women underwent uncomplicated cataract extraction and subsequent implantation of a +21.5 D AMO Z9002 (Abbott Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA) silicone lens.

RESULTS

On postoperative day 1, the patient presented with a translucent, milky white appearing, diffuse IOL opacification. On postoperative day 8, the IOL periphery had cleared, but a full thickness haze persisted in the central portion of the optic. By postoperative day 14, the IOL had cleared. To date, the lens has remained clear.

CONCLUSION

One possible mechanism might be exposure to industrial chemicals; however, the manufacturer reports no other similar lens opacities from this manufacturing batch of IOLs. We recommend that surgeons who implant or have implanted an AMO Z9002 silicone IOL and observe similar findings follow the patient closely for resolution of the haze.

Postoperative opacification of polymethylmethacrylateintraocular lens

Background: Opacification of ophthalmic devices has been previously reported in silicone scleral buckle, Molteno implant, and intraocular lens opacification. However, there is no report on polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) intraocular lens (IOL) calcification. Objective: Report the clinical feature, histopathologic and spectrophotometer analysis of opacified three-piece PMMA IOL. Method: A 60-year-old diabetic patient reported decreased visual acuity in her right eye, which had undergone phacoemulsification with PMMA IOL implantation. The ophthalmic examination revealed a white homogeneous opacification of posterior surface of the IOL. The explanted IOL was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and alizarin red staining. Results: The scanning electron microscope analysis showed granular deposits on posterior surface of the IOL. Using energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis, calcium and phosphate peaks were revealed, which was confirmed by positive for alizarin red staining. Conclusion: This case report provided evidence of PMMA IOL calcification caused by calcium and phosphate deposits. The possible etiologies were extrinsic and/or intrinsic factors.

Causes of intraocular lens opacification or discoloration

Various pathologic processes may lead to clinically significant opacification or discoloration of the optic component of intraocular lenses (IOLs) manufactured from different biomaterials and in different designs. Factors such as the patient's associated conditions, the manufacturing process, the method of IOL storage, the surgical technique and adjuvants, or a combination of these may be involved. The complication may be observed intraoperatively or postoperatively from a few hours after implantation to many years after surgery, depending on the processes involved. Based on a review of the literature as well as our own laboratory analyses, the following types of processes were identified: formation of deposits/precipitates on the IOL surface or within the IOL substance; opacification by excess influx of water in hydrophobic materials; direct discoloration by capsular dyes or medications; coating by substances such as ophthalmic ointment and silicone oil; and a slow, progressive degradation of the IOL biomaterial.