Corneal incision architecture after IOL implantation with three different injectors: an environmental scanning electron microscopy study.
Cataract
Corneal incision
Environmental scanning electron microscopy
Injector
Intraocular lens
Preloaded injector
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
09
08
2017
accepted:
18
01
2018
pubmed:
3
2
2018
medline:
9
4
2019
entrez:
3
2
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate by Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM) the corneal incision architecture after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in pig eyes, using manual, automated injectors or preloaded delivery systems. Twenty-four pig eyes underwent IOL implantation in the anterior chamber using three different injectors: manual (Monarch III) (n = 8), automated (AutoSert) (n = 8), or a preloaded system (UltraSert) (n = 8). Acrysof IQ IOLs, 21 Dioptres (D) (n = 12) and 27D (n = 12), were implanted through 2.2 mm clear corneal incisions. Incision width was measured using corneal calipers. The endothelial side of the incision was analyzed with ESEM. In each group, the final size of the corneal wound after IOL implantation, measured by calipers, was 2.3-2.4 mm. The incision architecture resulted more irregular in the Monarch group compared with the other injectors. In every group the 27D IOL-implanted specimens showed more alterations than in 21D IOL-implanted samples, and this was less evident in the UltraSert group. The Descemet tear length was higher in the Monarch group than AutoSert and UltraSert group. The automated and preloaded delivery systems provided a good corneal incision architecture; after high-power IOL implantation the incisions were more regular and less damaged with the preloaded system than with the other devices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29392640
doi: 10.1007/s10792-018-0825-2
pii: 10.1007/s10792-018-0825-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
397-403Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Aug;136(2):300-5
pubmed: 12888053
Ophthalmology. 2005 Jan;112(1):58-66
pubmed: 15629821
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Apr;31(4):735-41
pubmed: 15899450
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006 Feb;17(1):62-7
pubmed: 16436926
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Mar;33(3):510-5
pubmed: 17321403
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Jun;33(6):978-88
pubmed: 17531690
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Aug;33(8):1429-35
pubmed: 17662437
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Feb;35(2):233-9
pubmed: 19185236
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2010 Jan-Feb;41(1):128-34
pubmed: 20128583
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Feb;38(2):249-55
pubmed: 22154012
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Aug;38(8):1460-6
pubmed: 22814053
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Oct;38(10):1771-6
pubmed: 22889884
Eye (Lond). 2014 Oct;28(10):1174-8
pubmed: 25033901
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015 Feb;29(1):23-30
pubmed: 25646057
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Apr;43(4):558-563
pubmed: 28532943
Ophthalmology. 1996 Feb;103(2):220-5
pubmed: 8594505
Ophthalmology. 1997 Aug;104(8):1277-86
pubmed: 9261314