Atomic force microscopy comparative analysis of the surface roughness of two posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens models: ICL versus IPCL

Abstract

Background To compare the anterior surface roughness of two commercially available posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses (IOLs) using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Methods Four phakic IOLs were used for this prospective, experimental study: two Visian ICL EVO+ V5 lenses and two iPCL 2.0 lenses. All of them were brand new, were not previously implanted in humans, were monofocal and had a dioptric power of − 12 diopters (D). The anterior surface roughness was assessed using a JPK NanoWizard II® atomic force microscope in contact mode immersed in liquid. Olympus OMCL-RC800PSA commercial silicon nitride cantilever tips were used. Anterior surface roughness measurements were made in 7 areas of 10 × 10 μm at 512 × 512 point resolution. The roughness was measured using the root-mean-square (RMS) value within the given regions. Results The mean of all anterior surface roughness measurements was 6.09 ± 1.33 nm (nm) in the Visian ICL EVO+ V5 and 3.49 ± 0.41 nm in the iPCL 2.0 (p = 0.001). Conclusion In the current study, we found a statistically significant smoother anterior surface in the iPCL 2.0 phakic intraocular lenses compared with the VISIAN ICL EVO+ V5 lenses when studied with atomic force microscopy.

A comparative study of two phakic posterior chamber implantable lenses

“…The anterior surface of the IPCL was significantly smoother than that of the ICL. [18] In our study, the OOQ-related values measured by the OQAS showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. It demonstrated that the amount of light scattered at the surface of the IOL is determined by the IOL surface roughness pertaining to the optical point of view.…”

“…It demonstrated that the amount of light scattered at the surface of the IOL is determined by the IOL surface roughness pertaining to the optical point of view. [18] Our findings indicate that differences in surface roughness does not result in considerable clinical differences. The high-order aberrations were higher in LASIK than in phakic IOL implantation, and the phakic IOL group had better OOQ parameters than the LASIK group.…”

“…It demonstrated that the amount of light scattered at the surface of the IOL is determined by the IOL surface roughness pertaining to the optical point of view. [ 18 ] Our findings indicate that differences in surface roughness does not result in considerable clinical differences.…”

“…Moreover, ICLs have 5 holes: 1 hole in the center of the optic, 2 holes in the periphery of the optic, and the remaining 2 holes in the opposite haptics end at positions of 10 and 4 o’clock to help identify an upside-down IOL orientation. [ 16 , 18 ] The diopter power range is designed to correct myopia from −1.0 D to −18.0 D and hyperopia from +1.0 D to +10.0 D with 4 available diameter options: 12.1, 12.6, 13.2, and 13.7 mm. [ 10 , 19 ] IPCLs include 6 haptics to boost stability within the posterior chamber.…”

“…[ 20 ] The central conic hole is a new addition to the IPCL to minimize light scattering, reduce glare, and facilitate alignment and aqueous humor circulation. [ 18 ] The diopter power range is intended for the correction of myopia in the range of −1.00 to −30.00 D and hyperopia from +1.0 to +15.0 D. The optical diameter varies between 5.75 and 6.20 mm, and the total diameter ranges from 11.0 to 14.00 mm, with 0.25 mm increments. [ 10 ] Furthermore, the optic diameter is 6.60 mm; however, it can be customized up to 7.25 mm, depending on the patient’s pupil size.…”