Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2001; 218(7): 469-478
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-16289
ÜBERSICHT

Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Aktueller Vergleich von Intraokularlinsen - eine Übersicht[1] [2]

Comparison of intraocular lensesH.  Burkhard Dick, Albert  J. Augustin
  • Universitäts-Augenklinik, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131 Mainz (Direktor: Prof. Dr. N. Pfeiffer), E-mail: bdick@mail.uni-mainz.de
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die derzeitige Vielzahl und Vielfalt an kommerziell verfügbaren Intraokularlinsen (IOL) stellen den Operateur häufig vor die Qual der Wahl. Er hat zu entscheiden, welche IOL die geeignetste für den jeweiligen Patienten ist. Einige Augenärzte fragen sich, ob überhaupt klinische Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen IOL-Typen bestehen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die verschiedenen derzeit verfügbaren IOL auf der Basis klinischer Studien vergleichend dargestellt.

The wide array of intraocular lenses (IOLs) commercially available today makes it a formidable challenge to choose the most appropriate lens for the patient. Many wonder whether there truly are clinical differences among various IOLs. This update traces the evolution of IOLs in response to the widespread acceptance of phacoemulsification, and discusses the respective advantages and disadvantages of the IOLs available today based on clinical investigations.

Schlüsselwörter

Kataraktchirurgie - faltbare Intraokularlinsen - Nachstar - Biokompatibilität - Zellablagerungen - Tunnelinzision

Key words

cataract surgery - foldable intraocular lenses - posterior capsule opacification - biocompatibility - cellular deposits - tunnel incision

01 Manuskript erstmalig eingereicht am 15. 2. 01 und in der vorliegenden Form angenommen.

02 Die Autoren haben kein finanzielles Interesse an irgendeinem Gegenstand.

Literatur

01 Manuskript erstmalig eingereicht am 15. 2. 01 und in der vorliegenden Form angenommen.

02 Die Autoren haben kein finanzielles Interesse an irgendeinem Gegenstand.

  • 01 Apple  D J, Isaacs  R T, Kent  D G, et al. Silicone oil adhesion to intraocular lenses: an experimental study comparing various biomaterials.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;;  23: 536-544.
    Google Scholar
  • 02 Apple  D J, Werner  L, Escobar-Gomez  M, Pandey  S K. Deposits on the optical surfaces of Hydroview intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 796-797.
    Google Scholar
  • 03 Bath  P E, Boerner  C F, Dang  Y. Pathology and physics of Nd:YAG-laser intraocular lens damage.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1989;;  13: 47-49.
    Google Scholar
  • 04 Borgioli  M, Coster  D J, Fan  R F, et al. Effect of heparin surface modification of polymethylmethacrylate intraocular lenses on signs of postoperative inflammation after extracapsular cataract extraction. One-year results of a double masked multicenter study.  Ophthalmology. 1992;;  99: 1248-1254; discussion 1254 - 1255.
    Google Scholar
  • 05 Christiansen  G, Durcan  F J, Olson  R J, Christansen  K. Prevalence, severity, and visual significance of glistenings seen in the AcrySof intraocular lens one to four years from implantaton.  Submitted to J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999.; 
    Google Scholar
  • 06 Cumming  J S. Surgical complications and visual acuity results in 536 cases of plate haptic silicone Iens implantaton.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;;  19: 275-277.
    Google Scholar
  • 07 Davison  J A. What causes idiopathic temporal deposits?.  Ocular Surgery News. 1999;;  17: 102-103.
    Google Scholar
  • 08 Dhaliwal  D K, Mamalis  N, Olson  R J, et al. Visual significance of glistenings seen in the Acrysof intraocular lens.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  22: 452-457.
    Google Scholar
  • 09 Dick  B, Kohnen  T, Jacobi  F K, Jacobi  K W. Langzeitergebnisse nach Implantation verschiedener Intraokularlinsen über einen Hornhauttunnel.  Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1997;;  211: 106-112.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Dick  B, Stoffelns  B, Pavlovic  S, Schwenn  O, Pfeiffer  N. Interaktion von Silikonöl mit verschiedenen Intraokularlinsenmaterialien: Eine licht- und rasterelektronenmikroskopische Untersuchung.  Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1997;;  211: 192-206.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dick  B, Schwenn  O, Stoffelns  B, Pfeiffer  N. Schadensausmaß bei verschiedenen Intraokularlinsenmaterialien durch die Neodymium:YAG-Laser Kapsulotomie.  Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1997;;  211: 263-271.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dick  B, Schwenn  O, Stoffelns  B, Pfeiffer  N. Späte Luxation einer schiffchenförmigen Silikonlinse in den Glaskörper nach Nd:YAG-Kapsulotomie.  Ophthalmologe. 1998;;  95: 181-185.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dick  B, Schwenn  O. Der Kapselknickring - Eine Weiterentwicklung des Kapselspannrings.  Ophthalmologe. 1999;;  96: 114-119.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dick  H B, Schwenn  O, Krummenauer  F, Krist  R, Pfeiffer  N. Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation.  Ophthalmology. 1999;;  106: 1878-1886.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dick  H B, Schwenn  O, Krummenauer  F, Krist  R, Pfeiffer  N. Inflammation after sclerocorneal versus clear corneal tunnel phacoemulsification.  Ophthalmology. 2000;;  107: 241-247.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dick  H B, Olson  R J, Augustin  A J, Schwenn  O, Magdowski  G, Pfeiffer  N. Vacuoles in the Acrysof intraocular lens as factor of the presence of serum in aqueous humor.  Ophthalmic Res. 2001;;  33: 61-67.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Forstot  S L, Blackwell  W L, Jaffe  N S, Kaufman  H E. The effect of intraocular lens implantation on the corneal endothelium.  Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1977;;  83: 195-203.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Frohn  A, Dick  H B, Augustin  A J, Grus  F H. Late opacification of foldable acrylic lenses MDR SC60B-OUV.  Ophthalmology. 2000;;  (eingereicht).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hayashi  H, Hayashi  K, Nakao  B. Quantitative comparison of posterior capsule opacification after polymethylmethacrylat, silicone, and soft acrylic intraocular Iens implantation.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;;  116: 1579-1582.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hoerauf  H, Menz  D H, Dresp  J, Laqua  H. Use of O44 as a solvent for silicone oil adhesions on intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  25: 1392-1393.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Holladay  J T, Lang  A, Portney  V. Analysis of edge glare phenomena in intraocular lens edge designs.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  25: 748-752.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hollick  E J, Spalton  D J, Ursell  P G, Pande  M V. Biocompatibility of poly(methylmethacrylate), silicone, and AcrySof intraocular lenses: randomized comparison of the cellular reaction on the anterior lens surface.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;;  24: 361-366.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hollick  E J, Spalton  D J, Ursell  P G, et al. The effect of polymethylmethacrylate, silicone, and polyacrylic intraocular lenses on posterior capsular opacification 3 years after cataract surgery.  Ophthalmology. 1999;;  106: 49-54; discussion 54 - 55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hollick  E J, Spalton  D J, Ursell  P G. Surface cytologic features on intraocular lenses: can increased biocompatibility have disadvantages?.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;;  117: 872-878.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jacobi  F K, Dick  B, Bohle  R M. Histological and ultrastructural study of corneal tunnel incisions using diamond and steel keratomes.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;;  24: 498-502.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Koch  M U, Kalicharan  D, van der Want  J JL. Lens epithelial cell layer formation related to hydrogel foldable intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  25: 1637-1640.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kohnen  T, Lambert  R J, Koch  D D. Incision sizes for foldable intraocular lenses.  Ophthalmology. 1997;;  104: 1277-1286.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kraff  M C, Sanders  D R, Lieberman  H L, et al. Membrane formation after implantation of polyvinyl alcohol-coated intraocular lenses.  J Am lntraocul Implant Soc. 1980;;  6: 129-136.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Leaming  D V. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members - 1999 survey.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 913-921.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lundgren  B, Selen  G, Spangberg  M, Harfstrand  A. Fibrinous reaction on implanted intraocular lenses. A comparison of conventional PMMA and heparin surface modified lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992;;  18: 236-239.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Masket  S, Geraghty  E, Crandall  A S, et al. Undesired light images associated with ovoid intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;;  19: 690-694.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Masket  S. Consultation section. Cataract surgical problem.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;;  23: 979-984.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Meacock  W R, Spalton  D J, Hollick  E J, Boyce  J F, Barman  S, Sanguinetti  G. Double-masked prospective ocular safety study of a lens epithelial cell antibody to prevent posterior capsule opacification.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 716-721.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Milauskas  A T. Silicone intraocular lens implant discoloration in humans [letter].  Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;;  109: 913; reply-915.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mitooka  K, Hiroshi  T, Takuya  S. Glistening in acrylic IOLs. ASCRS Symposium on Cataract, IOL, and Refractive Surgery, Seattle, Washington; 1999.:
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Neumann  A C, Cobb  B. Advantages and limitations of current soft intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1989;;  15: 257-263.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nagata  T, Minakata  A, Watanabe  I. Adhesiveness of AcrySof to a collagen film.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;;  24: 367-370.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Nishi  O, Nishi  K, Sakanishi  K. Inhibition of migrating lens epithelial cells at the capsular bend created by the rectangular optic edge of a posterior chamber intraocular lens.  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;;  29: 587-594.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Nishi  O, Nishi  K. Preventing posterior capsule opacification by creating a discontinuous sharp bend in the capsule.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  25: 521-526.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Nishi  O. The discontinuous capsular bend - sharp implant edge - rationale and experimental evidence. European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, Vienna, Austria; 1999.:
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Olson  R, Cameron  R, Hovis  T, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Unfolder.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997;;  23: 1384-1389.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 OIson  R J, Crandall  A S. Prospective randomized comparison of phacoemulsification cataract surgery with a 3.2-mm vs a 5.5-mm sutureless incision.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;;  125: 612-620.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Olson  R J, Crandall  A S. Silicone versus polymethylmethacrylate intraocular Ienses with regard to capsular opacificaton.  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;;  29: 55-58.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Omar  O, Pirayesh  A, Mamalis  N, Olson  R J. In vitro analysis of AcrySof intraocular lens glistenings in AcryPak and Wagon Wheel packaging.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;;  24: 107-113.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ravalico  G, Baccara  F, Lovisato  A, Tognetto  D. Postoperative cellular reaction on various intraocular lens materials.  Ophthalmology. 1997;;  104: 1084-1091.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Samuelson  T W, Chu  Y R, Kreiger  R A. Evaluaton of giant-cell deposits on foldable intraocular lenses after combined cataract and glaucoma surgery.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 817-823.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schmitz  S, Dick  H B, Krummenauer  F, Schwenn  O, Krist  R. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;;  84 (im Druck).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schwenn  O, Kottler  U, Krummenauer  F, Dick  H B, Pfeiffer  N. Effect of large positioning holes on capsule fixation of plate-haptic intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 1778-1785.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Steinert  R F, Deacon  J. Enlargement of incision width during phacoemulsification and folded intraocular lens implant surgery.  Ophthalmology. 1996;;  103: 220-225.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sugar  J, Mitchelson  J, Kraff  M. Endothelial trauma and cell loss from intraocular lens insertion.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1978;;  96: 449-450.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Tester  R, Pace  N L, Samore  M, Olson  R J. Dysphotopsia in phakic and pseudophakic patients - incidence and relation to commonly used intraocular lenses.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;;  26: 810-816.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Trocme  S D, Hung-ir  L, the heparin-surface-modified lens study group. Effect of heparin-surface-modified intraocular lenses on postoperative inflammation after phacoemulsification.  Ophthalmology. 2000;;  107: 1031-1037.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Versura  P, Torreggiani  A, Cellini  M, Caramazza  R. Adhesion mechanisms of human lens epithelial cells on 4 intraocular lens materials.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;;  25: 527-533.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Werner  L, Pandey  S K, Escobar-Gomez M, et al. Histopathological study of anterior capsule opacificaton with different IOLs. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Orlando, Florida, October 26; 1999.:
    Google Scholar
      >