Biocompatibility and refractive errors of intraocular hydrophilic and hydrophobic lenses.

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

2005, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2005; 79 (5)

Biocompatibility and refractive errors of intraocular hydrophilic and hydrophobic lenses.

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

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 271-276
PDF size: 72.48 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 groups.
Methods: This prospective, comparative, interventional and longitudinal study comprised 40 eyes of 37 patients having phacoemulsification and implantation of an IOL in the Instituto de Oftalmología Conde de Valenciana. There were two groups of 20 eyes each of one, 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 day after surgery, refractive errors and biocompatibility were measured.
Results: The hydrophobic IOL group had greater flare in first days of follow-up visits, 11patients (55%) had myopia, 2 patients (15%) hyperopia. The hydrophilic IOL group had greater incidence of posterior capsule opacification, with difference statistically significant (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 have better capsular biocompatibility than hydrophilic IOL. The difference in refractive errors was no statistically significant between both groups.

REFERENCES

Tognetto D, Toto L, Ballone E, Ravalico G. Biocompatibility of hydrophilic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28(4):644-51.
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 col.. 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; 1-2.
5. Amon M. Biocompatibility of intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:170-179.
6. Mamalis N. Hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 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 col. Significant postoperative refractive errors in vivo with the Mentor MemoryLens intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:656-661.
9. Werner L, Pandey S, Escobar M. Anterior capsule opacification. a histopathological study comparing different IOL styles. Ophthalmology 2000; 107(3):463-471.
10. Miyake K, Ota I, Miyake S y col. 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 col. 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):1586-90.