Purpose: To find out the incidence of intraocular lens (IOL)-optic opacificat ion in a suspect IOL. Methods: Retrospective review of patients’notes 3-4 year s postimplant. Results: In all, 56 IOLs showed signs of opa...Purpose: To find out the incidence of intraocular lens (IOL)-optic opacificat ion in a suspect IOL. Methods: Retrospective review of patients’notes 3-4 year s postimplant. Results: In all, 56 IOLs showed signs of opacification, resulting in reduced vision out of 181 lenses traced. Conclusion: Certain hydrophilic acr ylic IOLs like the model in question (SC60B-0UV) show opacification of the IOL, which may impair the vision of pseudophakic patients. However, not all lenses o f this variety exhibit this cloudiness. Factors affecting this phenomenon are no t yet completely clear but may include changes in the UV absorbant material inco rporated in the lens substance itself. We report a series of patients who had re ceived this lens and experienced loss of vision due to opacification of the IOL. In a follow-up ranging from 1 to 4 years postoperatively, a higher incidence o f postoperative opacification of this lens emerges, after comparison with existing literature. IOL exchange in such patients is the only option. However, this mode of treatment should not be offered lightly as results may be guarded at best even in the face of a technica lly satisfactory procedure.展开更多
文摘Purpose: To find out the incidence of intraocular lens (IOL)-optic opacificat ion in a suspect IOL. Methods: Retrospective review of patients’notes 3-4 year s postimplant. Results: In all, 56 IOLs showed signs of opacification, resulting in reduced vision out of 181 lenses traced. Conclusion: Certain hydrophilic acr ylic IOLs like the model in question (SC60B-0UV) show opacification of the IOL, which may impair the vision of pseudophakic patients. However, not all lenses o f this variety exhibit this cloudiness. Factors affecting this phenomenon are no t yet completely clear but may include changes in the UV absorbant material inco rporated in the lens substance itself. We report a series of patients who had re ceived this lens and experienced loss of vision due to opacification of the IOL. In a follow-up ranging from 1 to 4 years postoperatively, a higher incidence o f postoperative opacification of this lens emerges, after comparison with existing literature. IOL exchange in such patients is the only option. However, this mode of treatment should not be offered lightly as results may be guarded at best even in the face of a technica lly satisfactory procedure.
