Effects of yellow intraocular lenses on light-induced upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor

Abstract

This study supports the theory that a blue-light filtering IOL may be more protective against A2E-induced photochemical damage and inhibit more light-induced VEGF production than a conventional UV-absorbing IOL.

Measurements of transmission spectrums and estimation of retinal blue-light irradiance values of currently available clear and yellow-tinted intraocular lenses

“…These IOLs are now made of either foldable silicone or soft acrylic material, and there is great interest in using IOLs designed to block blue light [8]. Experimental studies report the protective effects of yellow-tinted IOLs against retinal photo-oxidative stress in photosensitizing A2E-laden retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells exposed to blue light [9,10] and artificial sunlight [11] in vitro, as well as in rats [12] and in rabbits [13] exposed to blue light in vivo.…”

Visual quality assessment in patients with orange-tinted blue light–filtering and clear ultraviolet light–filtering intraocular lenses

“…[14][15][16] Although laboratory experimental studies indicate protective effects of blue light-filtering IOLs on retinal structures and the RPE, recent epidemiologic studies have not provided conclusive evidence of the prevention of AMD by the use of blue light-filtering IOLs. [14][15][16][17][18][19] In addition to photoprotection, studies have also assessed the potential impact of blue light-filtering IOLs on visual performance, especially visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision under various lighting conditions. Theoretical concerns suggest that these IOLs may impair rod-mediated visual functions, such as scotopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, as well as color vision.…”

Ultraviolet or blue-filtering intraocular lenses: what is the evidence?

“…11,[48][49][50] However, more importantly as short-wavelength light has been shown to be toxic to the retina and results of in vitro, animal and clinical studies support the hypothesis that protecting the retina from short-wavelength light is desirable, implantation with a BFIOL seems a sensible precaution. (Van NorrenCambridge Symposium Paper) 6,7,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Early evidence in a small study has shown that BFIOLs have a potential to reduce the advance of GA, 21 and there is also emerging evidence that short-wavelength light may have a role in ocular melanoma development, 70 as well as skin melanomas, making protection from short-wavelength light desirable for the eye. The paediatric population that have a longer exposure to short-wavelength light may be best served by a BFIOL implantation.…”

“…[1][2][3] However, there is good evidence from animal and cell culture studies that a BFIOL can exert a protective effect. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Despite the potential for damage demonstrated by the results of these studies, it has been said that these findings may not be directly applicable to the development or progression of AMD in humans. More recently, small early studies regarding the use of BFIOLs in humans relevant to this question have been published.…”

“…6,7 (Van NorrenCambridge Symposium Paper) There is good evidence from animal and cell culture studies that a yellow lens can protect against damage from light. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Tanito et al measured the spectral transmission of 54 IOLs including BFIOLs and UVFIOLs and estimated the retinal hazard indices. Retinal hazard indices included blue light irradiance value (characterised by an action spectrum called the hazard function, which represents the relative weight of each wavelength regarding its potential to cause damage to the retina) and maximal permissible exposure duration per day (t max ) for viewing sunlight.…”