Scanning electron microscopy study of different one-piece foldable acrylic intraocular lenses after injection through microincisional cataract surgery cartridges

  • Paolo Cecchini
  • Rossella D’AloisioEmail author
  • Chiara De Giacinto
  • Gianluca Turco
  • Daniele Tognetto
Original Paper



To evaluate possible surface alterations of different models of one-piece foldable acrylic intraocular lenses (IOLs) after folding and ejecting process through 2.2-mm microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) cartridges.


In this experimental laboratory study, the following IOLs were studied: Johnson&Johnson PCB00, HOYA iSert 251, Alcon AcrySof IQ SN60WF, Bausch&Lomb enVISTA MX-60. A total of 80 IOLs were analyzed. Twenty intraocular lenses of each type were studied: ten with a power of + 21 D ± 1 and ten with a power of + 28 D ± 1. IOLs were injected through a dedicated 2.2-mm MICS cartridge into a 50-mL vial containing 10 mL of deionized water. After rinsing and metallization process, scanning electron microscopy images were acquired.


All IOLs presented high-quality construction biomaterials. Some IOLs showed superficial scratches and tears on the optic surface, mainly positioned according to the direction of the stress induced by the folding process. In other cases, small superficial tears were seen in a more peripheral position.


All lenses showed excellent surface quality. After folding and injection process some superficial scratches and tears of the IOL optic were detected in some models. Further studies are needed to assess the possible effects of those superficial damages on the optical quality of the IOLs.


Microincisional cataract surgery Scanning electron microscopy Foldable acrylic intraocular lenses Optical quality 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Paolo Cecchini, Rossella D’Aloisio, Chiara De Giacinto, Gianluca Turco and Daniele Tognetto declare they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wilczynski M, Supady E, Loba P, Synder A, Palenga-Pydyn D, Omulecki W (2011) Evaluation of surgically induced astigmatism after coaxial phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm microincision and standard phacoemulsification through 2.75 mm incision. Klin Oczna 113:314–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang L, Xiao X, Zhao L, Zhang Y, Wang J, Zhou A, Wang J, Wu Q (2017) Comparison of efficacy between coaxial microincision and standard-incision phacoemulsification in patients with age-related cataracts: a meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 17:267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moon SC, Mohamed T, Fine IH (2007) Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after clear corneal incisions of different sizes. Korean J Ophthalmol 21:1–5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kohnen T, Lambert RJ, Koch DD (1997) Incision sizes for foldable intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 104:1277–1286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koch PS (1991) Structural analysis of cataract incision construction. J Cataract Refract Surg 17:672–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H (2009) Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:233–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleary G, Spalton DJ, Hancox J, Boyce J, Marshall J (2009) Randomized intraindividual comparison of posterior capsule opacification between a microincision intraocular lens and a conventional intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:265–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wylegala E, Rebkowska-Juraszek M, Dobrowolski D, Woyna-Orlewicz A (2009) Influence of 3.0 mm incision coaxial phacoemulsification and microincision cataract surgery (MICS) on corneal thickness. Klin Oczna 111:207–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strauss RW, Hochleitner ME, Gsenger W, Alge-Priglinger C, Faschinger CW, Henrich PB, Wedrich A, Priglinger SG, Schilcher K (2012) Changes in intraocular lens surface roughness during cataract surgery assessed by atomic force microscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:146–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosen E (2012) Cataract surgery is refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:191–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berdeaux G, Meunier J, Arnould B, Viala-Danten M (2010) Measuring benefits and patients’ satisfaction when glasses are not needed after cataract and presbyopia surgery: scoring and psychometric validation of the Freedom from Glasses Value Scale (FGVS). BMC Ophthalmol 24:10–15Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kohen T, Klaproth OK (2010) Intraocular lenses for microincisional cataract surgery. Ophthalmologe 107:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Nocentini L, Danielli D, Menchini U (2006) Scanning electron microscopic analysis of acrylic intraocular lenses for microincision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:318–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faschinger CW (2001) Surface abnormalities on hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses implanted by an injector. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:845–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Findl O, Buehl W, Bauer P, Sycha T (2010) Interventions for preventing posterior capsule opacification. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 17:CD003738Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olson R, Cameron R, Hovis T, Hunkeler J, Lindstrom R, Steinert R (1997) Clinical evaluation of the unfolder. J Cataract Refract Surg 23:1384–1389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gohill J, Bhamra J (2003) Unfolder lens injection system with acrylic intraocular lenses: retrospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:980–982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mamalis N (2001) Hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1339–1340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, Eye ClinicUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Department of Medical ScienceUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations