Biocompatibility and refractive errors of acrylic hydrophilic and hydrophobic intraocular lenses.

Ingrid P. Urrutia Breton; María Elena Morales Gómez; Humberto Matiz Moreno; Marisol Garzón; Herbert Rodríguez Revilla

2005, Number 2

Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2005; 79 (2)

Biocompatibility and refractive errors of acrylic hydrophilic and hydrophobic intraocular lenses.

Urrutia BIP, Morales GME, Matiz MH, Garzon M, Rodríguez RH

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 69-74
PDF size: 175.89 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To determine the incidence of refractive errors with implantation of hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) in comparison with hydrophobic IOL, and to evaluate biocompatibility between each group.
Methods: This prospective, comparative, interventional and longitudinal study comprised 40 eyes of 37 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation of IOL in the Instituto de Oftalmología Conde de Valenciana. Two groups of 20 eyes each were formed. In the first group a hydrophilic IOL was implanted and in the second group a hydrophobic IOL. Patients were examined 1, 7, 30, 90, 180 and 360 days after surgery; refractive errors and biocompatibility were evaluated.
Results: The hydrophobic IOL group had greater flare in first days of follow-up, 11patients (55%) had myopia, 2 patients (15%) hyperopia. The hydrophilic IOL group had greater incidence of posterior capsule opacification, with a significant statistical difference (P=‹0.05), 15 patients (75%) had myopia, and 2 patients (1%) had hyperopia.
Conclusions: The hydrophilic IOL had better uveal biocompatibility; however the hydrophobic IOL had better capsular biocompatibility than the hydrophilic IOL. The difference of refractive errors was not statistically significant between both groups.

REFERENCES

1. Tognetto D, Toto L, Ballone E, Ravalico G. Biocompatibility of hydrophilic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28(4):644-651.
2. Pötzsch D, Lösch-P Ch. Four year follow-up of the Memory Lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22(Supl 2):1336-1341.
3. Abela-Formanek D, Amon M, Schild G y cols. Uveal and capsular biocompatibility of acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28(1):1-2.
4. Mamalis N. Intraocular lens biocompatibility. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:1-2.
5. Amon M. Biocompatibility of intraocular lenses (letter). J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:170-179.
6. Mamalis N. Hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27(9):1339-1340.
7. Werner L, Apple DJ y cols. Postoperative deposition of calcium on the surfaces of hydrogel intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 2000; 107:2179-2185.
8. Nelson T, Norman A, Zabriskie y cols. Significant Post-operative refractive errors in vivo with the Mentor Memory Lens intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:656-661.
9. Werner L, Pandey S, Escobar M. Anterior Capsule Opacifica-tion. A Histopathological Study Comparing Different IOL Styles. Ophthalmology, 2000; 107(3):463-471.
10. Miyake K, Ota I, Miyake S y cols. Correlation between intraocular lens hidrophilicity and anterior capsule opacification and aqueous flare. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:(Supl) 764-769.
11. Ursell P, Spalton D, Pande M y cols. Relationship between intraocular lens biomaterials and posterior capsule opacifica-tion. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1998;24. 352-359.
12. Sundelin K, Riad Y, Osteberg A. Posterior capsule opacification with Acrysof and poly(methylmetacrylate) intraocular lenses. Comparative Study with a 3-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27 (10)1586-1590.