Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vivo and in vitro results of an automated preloaded delivery system for IOL implantation in cataract surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the corneal tissue trauma after the use of an automated preloaded injector and a manual injector and assess scanning electron microscope (SEM) and atomic force microscope (AFM) features of both injector cartridges.

Setting

Ophthalmology Clinic and Laboratory of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine University “G. d'Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy;

Design

Prospective randomized clinical study

Methods

Forty eyes of 40 patients for phacoemulsification were divided into two groups: implantation of intraocular lens was performed with AutonoMe automated delivery system (AutonoMe group: 20 eyes) and Monarch III injector system (Monarch group: 20 eyes). In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) were performed before surgery, at 1 h, 1 day and 1 month post-operatively. In addition, SEM and AFM were performed on cartridges of both injector systems after injection of the IOL.

Results

A greater increase in central corneal thickness and corneal thickness at the incision site were observed in Monarch group versus AutonoMe group 1 h and 1 day post-operatively (p < 0.05). Endothelial cell count loss was significantly higher in Monarch group compared with AutonoMe group (p < 0.05) at 1 and 24 h. AS-OCT showed less endothelial misalignment at 30 days (p < 0.05), and IVCM showed less tunnel inflammation at all time points (p < 0.05) in AutonoMe group compared with Monarch group; roughness analysis at AFM of the AutonoMe cartridge was significantly lower compared to Monarch D cartridge (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The AutonoMe injector provided less corneal tissue trauma compared with Monarch III injector. The AutonoMe cartridge showed lower roughness at AFM compared to the Monarch D cartridge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ong HS, Subash M, Sandhu A, Wilkins MR (2013) Intraocular lens delivery characteristics of the preloaded AcrySof IQ SN60WS/AcrySert injectable lens system. Am J Ophthalmol 156(1):77–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Oshika T, Nagahara K, Yaguchi S et al (1998) Three year prospective, randomized evaluation of intraocular lens implantation through 3.2 and 5.5 mm incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg 24(4):509–514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Zheng L, Merriam JC, Zaider M (1997) Astigmatism and visual recovery after ‘large incision’ extracapsular cataract surgery and ‘small’ incisions for phakoemulsification. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 95:387–415

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Steinert RF, Brint SF, White SM, Fine IH (1991) Astigmatism after small incision cataract surgery. A prospective, randomized multicenter comparison of 4- and 6.5-mm incisions. Ophthalmology 98(4):417–424

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Belazzougui R, Monod SD, Baudouin C, Labbé A (2010) Architectural analysis of clear corneal incisions using Visante OCT in acute postoperative endophthalmitis. J Fr Ophtalmol 33(1):10–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Palanker DV et al (2010) Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with integrated optical coherence tomography. Sci Transl Med 17(2):58

    Google Scholar 

  7. Taban M et al (2005) Ingress of India ink into the anterior chamber through sutureless clear corneal cataract wounds. Arch Ophthalmol 123:643–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Packer M (2007) Profile of clear corneal cataract incisions demonstrated by ocular coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(1):94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Salvatici MC, Spadea L, Allen D (2018) Corneal incision architecture after IOL implantation with three different injectors: an environmental scanning electron microscopy study. Int Ophthalmol 1 (Epub ahead of print)

  10. Chung B, Lee H, Choi M, Seo KY, Kim EK, Kim TI (2018) Preloaded and non-preloaded intraocular lens delivery system and characteristics: human and porcine eyes trial. Int J Ophthalmol 18(11):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Usui M, Tanaka T (2015) Resistance force for intraocular lens insertion through lens cartridges and syringe-type injectors. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(8):1745–1751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kohnen T, Klaproth OK (2008) Incision sizes before and after implantation of SN60WF intraocular lenses using the Monarch injector system with C and D cartridges. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1748–1753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinmann G, Kleinmann I (2014) Intraocular lens injector-induced stress on the corneal incisions during lens implantation. Am J Ophthalmol 158(1):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mastropasqua R, Agnifili L, Fasanella V, Curcio C, Brescia L, Lanzini M, Fresina M, Mastropasqua L, Marchini G (2015) Corneoscleral limbus in glaucoma patients. In vivo confocal microscopy and immunocytological study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 56:2050–2058

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mastropasqua L, Toto L, Vecchiarino L, Di Nicola M, Mastropasqua R (2011) Microcoaxial torsional cataract surgery 18 mm versus 22 mm: functional and morphological assessment. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 42(2):114–124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khokhar S, Sharma R, Patil B, Aron N, Gupta S (2014) Comparison of new motorized injector vs manual injector for implantation of foldable intraocular lenses on wound integrity: an ASOCT study. Eye (Lond) 28(10):1174–1178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kohnen T, Klaproth OK (2008) Incision sizes before and after implantation of SN60WF intraocular lenses using the Monarch injector system with C and D cartridges. J Cataract Refract Surg. 34(10):1748–1753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Imai H, Fujii A, Tani E, Azumi A (2016) Wound integrity of 2.0 mm transconjunctival single-plane sclerocorneal incision: a comparison between a motorized injector with/without pause time and a manual injector. J Ophthalmol. 2016, 8129298.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho JW, Afshari NA (2015) Advances in cataract surgery: preserving the corneal endothelium. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26(1):22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(1):267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0661-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Science of Ageing, Ophthalmology Clinic, University G. D’Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Via dei Vestini, 66100, Chieti, Italy

    Leonardo Mastropasqua, Lisa Toto, Erminia D’Ugo, Manuela Lanzini, Peter A. Mattei, Gennaro Falconio & Emanuele Doronzo

  2. Laboratory of Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences,, University G. D’Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

    Francesca Diomede & Oriana Trubiani

Authors
  1. Leonardo Mastropasqua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Toto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erminia D’Ugo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuela Lanzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter A. Mattei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gennaro Falconio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emanuele Doronzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francesca Diomede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Oriana Trubiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erminia D’Ugo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This prospective clinical study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mastropasqua, L., Toto, L., D’Ugo, E. et al. In vivo and in vitro results of an automated preloaded delivery system for IOL implantation in cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol 40, 125–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01154-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01154-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation