2009Clinical ophthalmologyOpen access

Findings of an experimental study in a rabbit model on posterior capsule opacification after implantation of hydrophobic acrylic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses

Νικόλαος Τράκος, Kalogeropoulos, Aspiotis, Loakim

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: Study on cell growth on the posterior capsule after implantation of hydrophobic acrylic (Acrysof SA 60 AT) and hydrophilic acrylic (Akreos Disc) intraocular lenses (IOL) in a rabbit model and comparison of posterior capsule opacification (PCO). METHODS: Phacoemulsification was performed in 22 rabbit eyes, and two different IOL types (Acrysof SA60 AT and Akreos Disc) were implanted. These IOLs had the same optic geometry (square edged) but different material and design. Central PCO (CPCO), peripheral PCO (PPCO), Sommering's ring (SR) formation, type of growth, extension of PCO, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis were evaluated three weeks after surgery. Histological sections of each globe were prepared to document the evaluation of PCO. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between a hydrophobic acrylic IOL and a hydrophilic acrylic IOL in relation to the CPCO, PPCO, type of growth, extension, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis. Statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the formation of SR with Acrysof SA 60 AT group presenting more SR than Akreos Disc group. CONCLUSION: PCO was not influenced by the material of the IOL or the design of the haptics of the IOLs we studied.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: Study on cell growth on the posterior capsule after implantation of hydrophobic acrylic (Acrysof SA 60 AT) and hydrophilic acrylic (Akreos Disc) intraocular lenses (IOL) in a rabbit model and comparison of posterior capsule opacification (PCO). METHODS: Phacoemulsification was performed in 22 rabbit eyes, and two different IOL types (Acrysof SA60 AT and Akreos Disc) were implanted. These IOLs had the same optic geometry (square edged) but different material and design. Central PCO (CPCO), peripheral PCO (PPCO), Sommering's ring (SR) formation, type of growth, extension of PCO, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis were evaluated three weeks after surgery. Histological sections of each globe were prepared to document the evaluation of PCO. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between a hydrophobic acrylic IOL and a hydrophilic acrylic IOL in relation to the CPCO, PPCO, type of growth, extension, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis. Statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the formation of SR with Acrysof SA 60 AT group presenting more SR than Akreos Disc group. CONCLUSION: PCO was not influenced by the material of the IOL or the design of the haptics of the IOLs we studied.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: Study on cell growth on the posterior capsule after implantation of hydrophobic acrylic (Acrysof SA 60 AT) and hydrophilic acrylic (Akreos Disc) intraocular lenses (IOL) in a rabbit model and comparison of posterior capsule opacification (PCO). METHODS: Phacoemulsification was performed in 22 rabbit eyes, and two different IOL types (Acrysof SA60 AT and Akreos Disc) were implanted. These IOLs had the same optic geometry (square edged) but different material and design. Central PCO (CPCO), peripheral PCO (PPCO), Sommering's ring (SR) formation, type of growth, extension of PCO, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis were evaluated three weeks after surgery. Histological sections of each globe were prepared to document the evaluation of PCO. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between a hydrophobic acrylic IOL and a hydrophilic acrylic IOL in relation to the CPCO, PPCO, type of growth, extension, cell type, inhibition, and fibrosis. Statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the formation of SR with Acrysof SA 60 AT group presenting more SR than Akreos Disc group. CONCLUSION: PCO was not influenced by the material of the IOL or the design of the haptics of the IOLs we studied.

Key concepts: Posterior capsule opacification, Ophthalmology, Intraocular lenses, Capsule, Phacoemulsification, Intraocular lens, Medicine, Acrylic resin

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Findings of an experimental study in a rabbit model on posterior capsule opacification after implantation of hydrophobic acrylic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses — Research Paper | ScholarLens