Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Investigation and management of an epidemic of Hydroview intraocular lens opacification

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Opacification of Hydroview posterior chamber intraocular lenses had been prescribed, but many aspects of this complication remain unknown, including its aetiology, clinical features, pathogenesis, prognosis and treatment. This paper describes an epidemic of Hydroview intraocular lens (IOL) opacification.

Methods

Subjects in whom the Hydroview IOL was implanted were recalled for evaluation of its transparency, assessment of contrast sensitivity (CS) [VCTS (Vistech CO, Dayton, Ohio, USA)] and visual acuity (LogMAR), and analysis of medical and surgical data. The results of IOL exchange in 69 eyes of 67 patients are also presented.

Results

Of 103 patients recalled, 46 (44.6%) and 3 (2.9%) exhibited opacification of the implanted IOL in one and both eyes, respectively. CS was significantly worse in the presence of an opacified IOL (P<0.050), even when Snellen acuity was unaffected. Where the viscoelastic employed during the primary cataract surgery was reliably documented, VISCOAT was used in 100% of cases (43/43), whereas Healonid had not been used in any (0/57) (P<0.0001). Following IOL exchange, visual acuity improved from a mean (±SD) of 0.75 (0.41) to 0.4 (0.34) LogMAR.

Conclusions

The prevalence of Hydroview IOL opacification is associated with the use of VISCOAT in the primary cataract surgery, and there is a biochemically plausible rationale to account for this. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity are adversely affected by opacification of the Hydroview IOL, but CS to a greater extent. Exchange of opaque IOLs is a visually rewarding procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yu AKF, Ng ASY (2002) Complications and clinical outcomes of intraocular lens exchange in patients with calcified hydrogel lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1217–1221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yu A, Kwan K, Chan D (2001) Clinical features of 46 eyes with calcified hydrogel intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1596–1606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Caprioli J (1992) The ciliary epithelium and aqueous humor. In: Hart W (ed) Adler’s physiology of the eye, 9th edn. Mosby, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dorey M, Brownstein S, Hill V et al (2003) Proposed pathogenesis for delayed postoperative opacification of the hydroview hydrogel intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 135:591–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Habib NE, Freegard TJ, Gock G, Newman PL, Moate RM (2002) Late surface opacification of Hydroview intraocular lenses. Eye 16:69–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatch S (1998) A quick taste. Ophthalmic research and epidemiology: evaluation and application. Butterworth–Heinemann, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Holladay JT (1997) Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg 13:388–391

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Izak AM, Werner L, Pandey SK, Apple DJ (2003) Calcification of modern foldable hydrogel intraocular designs. Eye 17:393–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jenson MK, Crandall AS, Mamalis N, Olson RJ (1994) Crystallization on intraocular lens surface associated with use of Healon GV. Arch Ophthalmol 112:1037–1042

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Koo EY, Lindsey PS, Soukiasian SH (1996) Bisecting a foldable acrylic intraocular lens for explantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 22:1381–1382

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Olson RJ (1995) New cases of crystalline deposits on intraocular lenses not related to any specific viscoelastic[letter]. Arch Ophthalmol 113:1229

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Olson RJ, Caldwell K, Crandall A, Jensen M, Huang S (1998) Intraoperative crystallization on the intraocular lens surface. Am J Ophthalmol 126:177–184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Packer M, Fine H, Hoffman RS, Piers P (2004) Improved functional vision with modified prolate intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:986–992

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pandey SK, Werner L, Apple DJ, Gravel JP (2002) Calcium precipitation on the optical surfaces of a foldable intraocular lens. Arch Ophthalmol 120:391–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shek TW, Wong A, Yau B, Yu AK (2001) Opacification of artificial intraocular lens: an electron microscopic study. Ultrastruct Pathol 25(4):281–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tognetto D, Toto L, Ballone E, Ravalico G (2002) Biochompatibility of hydrophilic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:645–651

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ullman S, Lichtenstein S, Heerlein K (1986) Corneal opacities secondary to Viscoat. J Cataract Refract Surg 12:489–492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Well AF (1994) Metal hydroxides, oxyhydroxides and hydroxysalt. Structural inorganic chemistry, 1st edn. Oxford

  19. Werner L, Eschobar-Gomer A et al (2000) Postoperative deposition of calcium on the surface of hydrogel intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 107:2179–2185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu AKF, Shek TWH (2001) Hydroxyapatite formation on implanted hydrogel intraocular lenses. Arch Ophthamol 119:611–614

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. W Altaie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Altaie, R.W., Costigan, T., Donegan, S. et al. Investigation and management of an epidemic of Hydroview intraocular lens opacification. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo 243, 1124–1133 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1179-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-005-1179-9

Keywords

Navigation