Evidence Hub

Late postoperative opacification of a hydrophilic acrylic (hydrogel) intraocular lens: a clinicopathological analysis of 106 explants

Neuhann IM, Werner L, Izak AM, Pandey SK, Kleinmann G, Mamalis N, Neuhann TF, Apple DJ

Ophthalmology, 2004

106 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report clinical, pathologic, histochemical, ultrastructural, and spectroscopic analyses of MemoryLens intraocular lenses (IOLs) explanted from patients who had visual disturbances caused by postoperative opacification of the lens optic.

DESIGN: Noncomparative, large case series with clinicopathologic correlation.

PARTICIPANTS: A total of 106 hydrophilic acrylic IOLs of the same design explanted from 106 different patients. All patients had decreased visual acuity at presentation approximately 2 years after cataract surgery, associated with a whitish fine granularity on the optical surfaces of the IOLs.

METHODS: The explanted IOLs were submitted to the John A. Moran Eye Center and were examined under light microscopy, histochemically, and with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) equipped with an energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy detector with light element capabilities (EDS).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The IOLs were examined for distribution, structure, and composition of the deposits causing opacification of their optic components.

RESULTS: The average interval between lens implantation and opacification was 25.8+/-11.9 months. The most frequently associated medical and ophthalmic conditions were diabetes and glaucoma. However, some patients did not have any preexisting medical or ophthalmic conditions. Most of the IOLs had been implanted in 1999 and 2000. Microscopic analyses revealed the presence of multiple fine, granular deposits of variable sizes on the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 106 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free