Abstract
Objective—To review patients currently forming part of a study of poly 2 hydroxyethylmethacrylate (P-HEMA) ‘Hydrogel’ intraocular lenses.
Design—Patients were taking part in the Hydrogel arm of a prospective trial at Scarborough Hospital. Recruitment was by letter.
Setting—District General Hospital.
Patients—One hundred and eight from the Scarborough trial in whom a Hydrogel lens had been implanted.
Interventions—An independent assessment was carried out at a median interval of 20 months following surgery. Visual acuities were assessed with best possible refraction and the eyes examined both before and after pupil dilation.
Main outcome measures—Visual acuity and major complications.
Results—91% had visual acuities of 6/9 or better and 30% achieved 6/5. In 61% the central area (3 mm diameter) of posterior capsule was clear but 39% had significant fibrosis or pearl formation in this area and 8% had undergone posterior capsulotomy. Five major decentrations had taken place, one of which occurred following a spontaneous rupture of the posterior capsule 17.6% of patients showed significant pigment dispersion behind the IOL either on the posterior capsule or in the anterior vitreous that could not be accounted for purely by surgical trauma. An atonic iris sphincter was noted in 17% of eyes.
Conclusions—This lens gives good visual results but its stability and tendency to cause pigment shedding need to be closely monitored.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Allarakhia L, Knoll RL, Lindstrom RL : Soft intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987, 13: 607–20.
Percival SPB . Prospective study comparing hydrogel with PMMA lens implants. (In press.)
Barratt GD, Beasley H, Lorenzetti OJ, Rosenthal A : Multicenter trial of an intraocular hydrogel lens implant. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987, 13: 621–6.
Percival SPB : Capsular bag implantation of the hydrogel lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987, 13: 627–9.
Hampton JR : Presentation and analysis of the results of clinical trials in cardiovascular disease. Br J Med 1981, 282: 1371–3.
Neuman AC and Cobb B : Advantages and limitations of current soft intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989, 15: 257–63.
Menapace. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989, 15: 264–71.
Percival SPB : Early experience with soft hydrogel implants. Eye 1987, 1: 735–7.
Skelnik DL, Lindstrom RL, Tamulinas C, Lorenzetti OJ : Nd: YAG laser interaction with Alcon IOGEL hydrogen intraocular lenses: An in vitro toxicity assay. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987, 13: 662–8.
Mehta KR, Sathe SN, Karyekar SD : The new soft intraocular lens implant. Am Intra-Ocular Implant Soc J 1978, 4: 200–4.
Percival SPB : Results after intracapsular extraction: the atonic pupil. Ophthalmic Surg 1977, 8: 138–43.
Lam S, Beck RW, Hall D, Creighton B : Atonic pupil after cataract surgery. Ophthalmol 1989, 96: 589–90.
Chen TT : Clinical experience with soft intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 1987, 13: 50–3.
Yalon M, Blumenthal M, Goldberg EP : Preliminary study of hydrophilic intraocular lens implants in cats. Am Intraocular Implant Soc J 1984, 10: 315–17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noble, B., Hayward, J. & Huber, C. Secondary evaluation of hydrogel lens implants. Eye 4, 450–455 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1990.57
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1990.57