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

Original Research

(2565) Views  (612) Full article downloads

Authors: Nikolaos Trakos, Elli Ioachim, Elena Tsanou, Miltiadis Aspiotis, Konstantinos Psilas, Chris Kalogeropoulos

Published Date January 2009 Volume 2008:2(4) Pages 997 - 1005

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S4339

Nikolaos Trakos¹, Elli Ioachim², Elena Tsanou², Miltiadis Aspiotis¹, Konstantinos Psilas¹, Chris Kalogeropoulos¹

¹University Eye Clinic of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece; ²Pathology Department, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece

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.

Keywords: posterior capsule opacification, intraocular lenses, rabbit model