4.4 Article

Long-term uveal and capsular biocompatibility of a novel modular intraocular lens system

期刊

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
卷 96, 期 4, 页码 E427-E433

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.13674

关键词

biocompatibility; capsular opacification; hydrophobic acrylic; intraocular lens

资金

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, NY, USA
  2. ClarVista Medical, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWe evaluated the long-term biocompatibility and safety of a new modular posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) system in rabbit eyes. MethodsSeven New Zealand rabbits underwent bilateral phacoemulsification with placement of the modular IOL in OD and a control IOL (SA60AT) in OS. Slit-lamp examinations were performed at postoperative weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and months 3 and 6. All rabbits were then sacrificed and eyes enucleated. The eyes were examined grossly from the Miyake-Apple view. Selected IOLs were explanted and underwent surface staining for implant cytology. All globes were then sectioned and processed for histopathological examination. ResultsThe modular IOL remained stable in all seven rabbits through the entire follow-up period. Biocompatibility was better than the control lens at six months postoperatively, on account of less extensive synechiae formation as assessed by slit-lamp examination. At the six-week examination, posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was significantly better in the test group (scored as 1.710.8 versus 3.28 +/- 0.48 in the control group, p=0.0008). On gross examination with the Miyake-Apple view, Soemmering's ring formation was significantly better in the test group, (5.14 +/- 1.57 versus 10.85 +/- 1.95 in the control group, p=0.002). ConclusionPrevious studies showed that explantation/exchange of the modular system optic was safer and easier than with a standard IOL. The new modular IOL system has demonstrated better long-term biocompatibility compared to the control lens at six months postoperatively in the rabbit model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据