4.3 Article

Biomechanical and optical properties of 2 new hydrophobic platforms for intraocular lenses

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 1404-1414

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.01.050

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Region Wallone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical and optical properties of 2 new hydrophobic platforms and a series of commercially available foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Center for Education and Research on Macromolecules, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: Eleven benchmark foldable IOLs (iPure, Podeye, Acrysof SN60WF, Envista MX60, Sensar AR40e, Tecnis ZCBOO, Isert 251, AF-1 YA-60BB, Finevision, Acri.Tec 366D, and Ioflex) were tested by standard analytical methods for biomechanical, rheological, and optical investigations under identical conditions. RESULTS: With 1 exception, IOLs equilibrated in aqueous medium had a lower glass-transition temperature, higher deformability, lower injection forces, and complete recovery of their initial optical properties after injection. Typical hydrophobic acrylic dry-packaged IOLs required higher injection forces with high residual deformation and lost part of their initial optical quality after injection. Hydrophobic acrylic C-loop, double C-loop, and closed quadripod haptics applied optimum compression forces to the capsular bag with negligible optic axial displacement and tilt compared with plate haptics and poly(methyl methacrylate) haptics. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the C-loop haptic and the bioadhesive glistening-free material, which absorbs a predetermined amount of water, allowed for a biomechanically stable IOL. The same material used in association with a double C-loop haptic design facilitated the perioperative manipulation and placement of the IOL in a smaller capsular bag without impairing the other biomechanical properties of a single C-loop design.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available