Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 2687385, 17 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2687385

Review Article

Biomaterial Influence on Intraocular Lens Performance: An Overview

Cari Pérez-Vives

Alcon Management SA, Geneva, Switzerland

Correspondence should be addressed to Cari Pérez-Vives; caridad.perez_vives@alcon.com

Received 8 June 2017; Revised 8 December 2017; Accepted 2 January 2018; Published 15 March 2018

Academic Editor: Jose M. González-Meijome

Copyright © 2018 Cari Pérez-Vives. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

There is strong evidence that the IOL material is the factor having the greatest impact on posterior capsule opacification (PCO), anterior capsule opacification (ACO) development, and glistening formation after cataract surgery, even though there are other IOL features—such as haptic material and design and edge and optic design—that also have some influence. We reviewed the published literature describing the adverse events that are mainly related to the intraocular lens (IOL) material, such as PCO, ACO, and the subsequent capsule contraction, as well as glistening formation. The adverse events presented in this overview are the most common ones in clinical practice, and therefore, they are generally included in the clinical protocols for IOL evaluation.

1. Introduction

Cataract is at present the second cause of blindness worldwide after age-related macular degeneration; moreover, in Eastern and Central Europe, cataract is still the leading cause [1]. In the United States (US) alone, cataract affects—in at least one eye—an estimated 20.5 million people (17.2%) over 40 years of age, and 6.1 million (5.1%) people have pseudophakia/aphakia. The total number of US people having cataract is predicted to increase up to 30.1 million by 2020, and 9.5 million of them are expected to have pseudophakia/aphakia [2]. Consequently, cataract surgery is one of the most frequent surgical procedures.

Cataract surgery is constantly evolving and improving in terms of the lens material and designs. The first intraocular lenses (IOLs), which were manufactured in 1949, were made of rigid plastic—namely, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)—and this biomaterial was the only one available for IOL implantation for over 30 years. The first implanted PMMA IOLs were implanted through an extracapsular surgical technique that resulted in large incisions and induced postoperative astigmatism. Subsequently, the design and the surgical technique have greatly improved. In the early 1970s, Charles Kelman introduced phacoemulsification, thus reducing the incision size, and initiated biomaterial diversification, including foldable materials such as silicone, hydrogel, and acrylic compounds [3, 4]. Today, cataract surgery is mainly performed using phacoemulsification and a foldable IOL, which is implanted through a small incision.

There are many types of IOLs, in terms of both optic features and materials. IOL design and materials are constantly evolving fields, aiming for better refractive outcomes with minimal incision size and trying to minimize host-cell response, since it may cause posterior capsule opacification (PCO), anterior capsular opacification (ACO), and lens epithelial cell (LEC) proliferation. IOL materials vary in water content, chemical composition, refractive index, and tensile strength, while IOL designs have different optic size, edge profiles, and haptic materials and designs, with the main goal of minimizing decentration, dislocations, optical aberrations, and opacifications [5–7].

The literature search was conducted in the Embase®, Medline® and Medline In-process, and the Cochrane databases through Embase and Ovid® platforms from January 2000 to December 2015. A detailed search strategy using terms related to cataract, intraocular lens, posterior capsular opacification, Nd:YAG laser, anterior capsule opacification, capsule contraction, and glistenings was prepared, to identify published literature reporting evidence that matched our research objectives.

This review provides an overview of the currently available IOL materials and designs and discusses their effect upon PCO, ACO, capsule contraction, and glistening formation.

2. Posterior Capsule Opacification

Surgical trauma during the surgery initially causes blood-aqueous barrier breakdown. This leads to protein leakage and macrophage migration from the blood into the surgical zone, eliciting immediate postoperative inflammation. The cellular reaction consists of two main components. One component comprises large cells, macrophages, and epithelioid cells, which later coalesce to form foreign body type giant cells, which represent uveal biocompatibility. The other comprises LECs, which can be divided into PCO and ACO. The source of the PCO is the equatorial cells originating from the equator of the capsule. These cells go through metaplasia and acquire the ability to migrate and proliferate, causing epithelial ingrowth between the IOL and the posterior capsule, which leads to a reduction in VA. PCO still remains the most frequent complication of modern cataract surgery. Advances in surgical techniques and IOL materials and designs have reduced PCO rates, but it is still a significant problem in clinical practice [8]. PCO can be effectively treated by using a neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser to cut a hole in the posterior lens capsule. However, this procedure may lead to additional complications, including IOL damage, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation, glaucoma, cystoid macular edema, or even retinal detachment [9]. The pathophysiology of PCO is multifactorial, varying particularly with the surgical technique, IOL materials, and designs [10–14], but since dissociation of each factor involved in PCO development is almost impossible, it is very difficult to differentiate between the individual elements in clinical practice.

Regarding the IOL material, the Linnola “sandwich theory” states that bioactive materials allow a single LEC to bond to both the IOL and the posterior capsule. This produces a sandwich pattern including the IOL, the LEC monolayer, and the posterior capsule, thus preventing further cell proliferation and capsular bag opacification [15]. Other studies carried out by Linnola et al. evaluated the adhesiveness of fibronectin, vitronectin, laminin, and type-IV collagen to IOL materials (PMMA, silicone, hydrophobic acrylate, and hydrogel), both in vitro [16] and in cadaver eyes [17, 18]. They found that fibronectin and laminin bond best to hydrophobic acrylate IOLs, resulting in better attachment to the capsule. This stronger binding could explain the enhanced adhesion of hydrophobic acrylate IOL to the anterior and posterior capsules and, as a result, the lower PCO and Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates [14, 19–34]. However, observational studies in animals [35] and cadaver eyes [36] showed that the IOL having a sharp posterior optic edge may play a more relevant role in this effect than the IOL material.

Table 1 shows the PCO and Nd:YAG rates reported in previous studies carried out for different IOL materials and designs [12–14, 19–34, 37–47]. Hydrophilic acrylic (including those hydrophilic IOLs with the hydrophobic surface) [25] and PMMA IOLs are associated with higher PCO rates, greater PCO severity, and also higher Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates than hydrophobic acrylic IOLs. Several comparative studies showed a superior reduction in PCO and laser capsulotomy rates with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs, compared with hydrophilic acrylic ones.

Table 1: Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) rates of several scientific articles published between 2000 and 2014.

Authors
IOL model
IOL characteristics
Eyes (n)
Study design
Follow-up
PCO rates (%)
value
Nd:YAG rates
value

Kucuksumer et al. [29]
Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
32
Contralateral & randomized study
1 year
93.7% grade 0
6.3% grade 1
<0.001
0%
—

MemoryLens
3-piece, hydrophilic acrylic
32
40.6% grade 0
28.1 grade 1
25% grade 2
6.3% grade 3
0%

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
21
Contralateral & randomized study
3 years
80.9% grade 0
14.4% grade 1
4.7% grade 2
<0.05
0%
0.46

MemoryLens
3-piece, hydrophilic acrylic
21
4.7% grade 0
52.4% grade 1
19% grade 2
9.5% grade 3
14.4% grade 4
19%

Oner et al. [33]
Acrysof MA30BA (Alcon)
3-piece, rectangular-edge hydrophobic acrylic
80
Consecutive series
16–22 months
8.70%
<0.05
14.30%
—

Opsia-Agena 550
Round-edge, PMMA
77
24.70%
26.30%

Hayashi et al. [39]
MZ60BD (Alcon)
Single-piece, PMMA
90
Prospective & randomized study
Up to 2 years
—
<0.0001
28.90%
—

SI-30NB (AMO)
Silicone
83
—
14.40%

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
96
—
4.20%

Schauersberger et al. [44]
Acrysof (Alcon)
3-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
25
Prospective study
3 years
85% grade 0
15% grade 1
0.323
—
—

CeeOn 911A (AMO)
3-piece, square-edge, silicone
25
95% grade 0
5% grade 1
—

Abhilakh Missier et al. [19]
AcrySof MA30BA/MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
107
Retrospective & contralateral study
3 years
19.6% grade 0
53.3% grade 1
16.8% grade 2
10.3% grade 3
<0.0001
2.8%
<0.05

AA4203VF (Staar)
Plate haptic, silicone
107
6.5% grade 0
26.2% grade 1
22.4% grade 2
44.9% grade 3
23.1%

Bender et al. [21]
812A/Storz P497UV (Pharmacia)
PMMA
63
Retrospective study
6 months
21.9%/27.2%
<0.0001
—
—

AcrySof MA30/SA31 (Alcon)
3-piece/1-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
33
10.5%/6.2%

SI-31 (AMO)
Silicone
22
15.30%

Hydroview H61 (B&L)
Hydrophilic acrylic
22
65.00%

812A/Storz P497UV (Pharmacia)
1-piece, PMMA
63
Retrospective study
2 years
32.9%/45.5%
—
—

AcrySof MA30/SA31 (Alcon)
3-piece/1-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
33
17.8%/18.4%

SI-31 (AMO)
Silicone
22
17.80%

Hydroview H61 (B&L)
Hydrophilic acrylic
22
62.20%

Prosdocimo et al. [42]
CeeOn Edge (AMO)
3-piece, sharp-edge, silicone
40
Prospective study
18 months
10% without VA lost
0.0336
0%
—

Acrysof (Alcon)
3-piece, square sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
38
29% without VA lost
3% with VA lost
3%

Auffarth et al. [20]
—
Hydrophilic acrylic
294
Retrospective study
3 years
37%
<0.001
31.10%
<0.001

—
PMMA
384
28.30%
19.30%

—
Hydrophobic acrylic
421
8.90%
7.10%

—
Silicone
426
21.60%
16.20%

K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi [26]
Hydroview H60M (B&L)
3-piece, hydrophilic acrylic
95
Prospective randomized contralateral study
24 months
—
—
28%
<0.0001

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
95
—
2%

Heatley et al. [27]
Centerflex 570H (Rayner)
Single-piece, square-edge, hydrophilic acrylic
53
Prospective randomized contralateral study
1 year
50.30%
<0.001
2.60%
—

AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon)
Single-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
53
4.90%
0%

Kugelberg et al. [30]
BL27 (B&L)
Single-piece, square-edge, hydrophilic acrylic
60
Prospective randomized study
1 year
18.20%
<0.001
3.50%
>0.05

AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon)
Single-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
60
4.65%
6.80%

Hancox et al. [13]
AcrySof SN60AT (Alcon)
1-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
36
Prospective randomized contralateral study
24 months
8.83%
<0.0001
—
—

AF-1 YA-60BB (Hoya)
Hydrophobic acrylic
36
32.44%

Hayashi et al. [40]
Acrysof MA60AC (Alcon)
3-piece, round optic, hydrophobic acrylic
45
Prospective randomized contralateral study
12 months
—
0.5004
2.20%
>0.999

AR40e (AMO)
3-piece, round optic, hydrophobic acrylic
45
—
2.20%

Kohnen et al. [41]
CeeOn Edge 911A (AMO) versus Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
Sharp-edge, silicone versus sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
139
Prospective randomized contralateral study
37 months
—
—
2.1% versus 2.1%

CeeOn Edge 911A (AMO) versus PhacoFlex SI40NB
Sharp-edge, silicone versus round optic edge, silicone
108
—
5.7% versus 17%

Kugelberg et al. [31]
BL27 (B&L)
Hydrophlic acrylic
60
Prospective randomized study
2 years
—
—
42%
<0.001

AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon)
Hydrophobic acrylic
60
—
10%

Boureau et al. [23]
AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon)
1-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
250
Restrospective study
2.9 years
13.60%
<0.001
12%
<0.001

AR40e (AMO)
3-piece, sharp-edge, acrylic hydrophobic
254
26.80%
25.20%

XL-Stabi (Zeiss)
1-piece, sharp-edge, acrylic hydrophilic
263
52.90%
51%

Ronbeck et al. [43]
809C (Pharmacia)
Round-edge, PMMA
54
Prospective randomized study
5 years
100%

54%
<0.05

SI-40NB (AMO)
Round-edge, silicone
48
12%

29%

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
Sharp-edge, acrylic hydrophobic
50
18%

8%

Vock et al. [46]
Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
98
Retrospective study
10 years
91% grade 0
4% grade 1
4% grade 2
1% grade 3
0.000073
42%
0.007

SI-30NB/SI-40NB (AMO)
3-piece, round optic edge, silicone
44
61% grade 0
30% grade 1
9% grade 2
0% grade 3
18%

Vock et al. [45]
CeeOn 911A (AMO)
3-piece, sharp-edge, silicone
22
Randomized and contralateral study
6 years
—
0.0016
9%
0.01

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
3-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
22
—
27.20%

Gauthier et al. [25]
AcrySof ReSTOR (Alcon)
Hydrophobic acrylic
160
Retrospective bilateral study
2 years
—
—
8.80%
0.0001

Acri.Lisa (Zeiss)
Hydrophilic acrylic with hydrophobic surface
152
—
37.20%

Iwase et al. [28]
AcrySof SA60AT
1-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
63
Prospective randomized and contralateral study
2 years
—
<0.001
2%
<0.01

Meridian HP60M (B&L)
1-piece, double square-edge, hydrophilic acrylic
63
—
13%

Vasavada et al. [34]
Acrysof IQ SN60WF (Alcon) versus C-flex 570C (Rayner)
Hydrophobic acrylic versus hydrophilic acrylic
66
Prospective randomized and contralateral study
3 years
—
0
0% versus 12.9%
0.04

Acrysof IQ SN60WF (Alcon) versus Akreos Adapt (B&L)
Hydrophobic acrylic versus hydrophilic acrylic
62
—
0
0% versus 16.1%
0.02

Zemaitiene and Jasinskas [47]
Acrysof MA30BA (Alcon)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
31
Prospective randomized study
3 years
—
0.995
9%
NS

Acrysof SA30AL (Alcon)
1-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
31
—
3.10%

CeeOn 911A (AMO)
3-piece, silicone
30
—
0%

Chang et al. [24]
Acrysof SA60AT (Alcon)
1-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
40
Prospective randomized study
5–7 years
—
0.5535
22%
>0.05

Sensar AR40e (AMO)
3-piece, hydrophobic acrylic
40
—
10%

Leydolt et al. [14]
iMics1 NY-60 (Hoya)
1-piece, sharp-edge optimized, hydrophobic acrylic
100
Prospective, randomized and contralateral study
3 years
—
<0.001
35.60%
0.001

Acrysof SN60WF (Alcon)
1-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
100
—
13.70%

Morgan-Warren and Smith [32]
Hoya FY60AD (HOYA)
3-piece, round-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
315
Retrospective comparative study
2 years
—
—
8.90%
0.03

Hoya PY60AD (HOYA)
3-piece, sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
254
—
4.30%

Acrysof SN60WF (Alcon)
1-piece, sharp hydrophobic acrylic
696
—
1.40%
0.007

Bourdiol Ducasse et al. [22]
Acrysof SN60WF (Alcon)
1-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
126
Retrospective study
2-3 years
—
—
10.30%

Akreos AO-MI60 (B&L)
1-piece, square-edge, hydrophilic acrylic
89
—
36%

Hoya YA-60BB (Hoya)
3-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
85
—
24.90%

Cullin et al. [37]
AcrySof SN60 (Alcon)
Hydrophobic acrylic
375
Retrospective study
41.5 months
—
—
7.50%
<0.001

Akreos Adapt (B&L)
Hydrophilic acrylic
350
—
17.70%

Tecnis Acryl Z9003 (AMO)
Hydrophobic acrylic
801
—
3.70%

Fong et al. [38]

AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon)
1-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
1016
Prospective cohort study

3 years

34.40%
—

—
—

MA50BM (Alcon)
3-piece, square-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
67
50.80%
—

Sensar AR40e (AMO)
3-piece, round-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
156
38.50%
—

Akreos Adapt (B&L)/Quatrix (Croma)
Square-edge, hydrophilic acrylic
101
64.40%
—

Ronbeck and Kugelberg [12]
809C (Pharmacia)
Round-edge, HSM PMMA
61
Prospective randomized study
12 years
—
—
57.40%

SI-40NB (AMO)
round-edge, silicone
59
—
28.80%

Acrysof MA60BM (Alcon)
Sharp-edge, hydrophobic acrylic
59
—
32.20%

Auffarth et al. [20] analyzed PCO and Nd:YAG laser treatment as a function of the IOL material (PMMA, silicone, hydrophilic acrylic, and hydrophobic acrylic). After 3 years of follow-up, hydrophobic acrylic IOLs showed a statistically lower incidence of PCO and Nd:YAG rates than the other three materials. A prospective randomized contralateral study [26] reported significantly higher PCO rates in eyes implanted with a hydrophilic hydrogel IOL (Hydroview H60M, B&L) than in eyes having a hydrophobic acrylic IOL (Acrysof MA60BM, Alcon). Moreover, the results revealed that this PCO led to a notably impaired visual acuity. After two years of follow-up, 28% of the eyes in the hydrophilic group and 2% in the hydrophobic acrylic group had required Nd:YAG capsulotomy. Boureau et al., in a retrospective study [23], compared the incidence of Nd:YAG laser treatment for three square-edge IOL models having different design and material compositions. After 3 years of follow-up, the proportion of patients requiring Nd:YAG laser treatment amounted to 12% for the SA60AT (Alcon) group, 25.2% for the AR40e (AMO), and 51% for the XL-Stabi (Zeiss). Gauthier et al. [25] reported 8.8% and 37.2% Nd:YAG rates after 2 years of bilateral implantation of AcrySof ReSTOR (Alcon) and Acri.LISA (Zeiss) multifocal IOLs, respectively. Similarly, Bourdiol Ducasse et al. [22] reported that eyes with AcrySof IOL implants required significantly fewer Nd:YAG laser capsulotomies than those implanted with a Hoya or Akreos IOLs and, therefore, were less prone to Nd:YAG laser treatment complications, thus ensuring better vision at the lowest cost.

All these outcomes could be attributed to the fact that hydrophobic IOLs are capable of adhering to collagen membranes [48], leading to a tighter IOL apposition in the posterior capsular bag and a better adhesiveness—through fibronectin—than other materials [49]. This may result in less space left between the IOL and the posterior capsule for the LECs to migrate. Furthermore, it has been reported that IOLs with hydrophilic surfaces promote proliferation and migration of LECs from the equatorial area to the visual region [50].

The literature shows more controversial results when comparing hydrophobic acrylic versus silicone materials. Several studies [41, 42, 44, 45, 47] have compared PCO and Nd:YAG rates for 3-piece, sharp-edge silicone IOLs (CeeOn 911A, AMO) and 3-piece, sharp-edge hydrophobic acrylic IOLs (AcrySof, Alcon). After 3 years of follow-up, the results showed low PCO and Nd:YAG capsulotomy incidence rates for both IOL groups with no statistically significant differences between them, thus concluding that the sharp-edge foldable IOLs play an important role in preventing PCO irrespective of the material the IOL is made of [41, 44, 47]. However, Vock et al. [45] found significantly higher PCO scores and Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs than with silicone IOLs after 6 years of follow-up. They concluded that aside from the IOL material, differences in the haptic design and the degree of the optic edge sharpness may play a role, and they highlighted the need for longer follow-up studies. In a retrospective and contralateral study, Abhilakh Missier et al. [19] assessed PCO rates in fellow eyes: each patient received one plate-haptic silicone IOL (AA4203VF, Staar) in one eye and a hydrophobic acrylate IOL (AcrySof MA30BA/MA60BM, Alcon) in the contralateral one. After 3 years of follow-up, they found significantly less PCO and lower Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy rates in the eyes implanted with the hydrophobic IOL than in the plate-haptic silicone IOL group. Other studies [12, 21, 39, 43, 45] also compared PCO and Nd:YAG rates resulting from 3-piece, round optic-edge silicone IOL (SI30N/SI40NB, AMO) and 3-piece, sharp-edge hydrophobic acrylic IOL (AcrySof, Alcon) implantation. Most of these studies revealed that following phacoemulsification, PCO rates increased over the years for all groups and that the benefit yielded by the acrylic IOL in terms of showing lower PCO rates faded as the years went by: after a long follow-up period, up to 12 years of follow-up, the PCO and Nd:YAG treatment rates were similar for both groups. These outcomes could be due to the silicone IOL efficiently inhibiting PCO over a long time or to the efficiency drop or loss of the hydrophobic acrylic IOL’s sharp edge due to late LEC proliferation, leading to an emerging Soemmering ring in the peripheral capsular bag, which, in its turn, resulted in a reduced or nonexistent PCO preventive effect 4-5 years postoperatively [12].

Regardless of the IOL material, the importance of IOL edge design is widely accepted, and there is considerable agreement among medical communities in favor of a square posterior optic edge for reducing PCO rates and Nd:YAG procedure needs. A systematic review found significantly lower PCO scores for sharp-edge IOLs compared to round-edge models, although there were no clear differences between IOL materials [10]. A square edge on the posterior IOL surface provides a barrier to LEC migration by inducing a capsular bend in the area where it is in contact with the IOL edge [33, 51–54]. Several trials showed no differences in PCO prevention between IOL models that had sharp posterior optic edges—irrespective of IOL material composition or square-edge design—thus indicating that a sharp posterior optic edge is the main factor preventing PCO [13, 41, 55, 56]. Edge sharpness can vary across IOL models. A prospective, single-site, fellow-eye comparative study of two hydrophobic IOLs found higher PCO rates and poorer visual acuity in eyes implanted with the AF-1 YA-60BB IOL (Hoya) versus the AcrySof SN60AT IOL (Alcon) over 24 months of follow-up. The authors attributed these differences to the fact that the AcrySof IOL has a sharper posterior edge profile than the Hoya IOL [13]. Moreover, in a recent 36-month follow-up study [14], the Hoya iMics1 NY-60 IOL showed higher PCO and Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates than AcrySof SN60WF IOL despite the novel Hoya iMics1 NY 60 model with optimized sharp edges, which are even sharper than those of the AcrySof SN60WF IOL (Alcon). These results suggest that the IOL material continues to play an important role in this complication [14].

A meta-analysis performed by Cheng et al. [11] concluded that PCO and Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy rates may be influenced by two parameters: IOL material and optic edge design. Lenses made of acrylic and silicone and those having sharp optic edges lead to lower PCO and laser capsulotomy rates. Morgan-Warren and Smith [32], in a retrospective, comparative 2-year follow-up study, reported lower Nd:YAG procedure rates with the newer sharper Hoya PY60AD IOL than with the Hoya FY60AD IOL model. The one-piece AcrySof SN60WF IOL was also analyzed in this retrospective study, showing the lower Nd:YAG rates than both the three-piece Hoya IOLs in the same period postoperatively. The sharpness of the square edge of the AcrySof IOL lies between the two Hoya models; therefore, the authors concluded that the IOL edge may contribute to reducing the PCO rates, but variations in IOL material composition may influence IOL’s susceptibility to PCO development independent of edge sharpness.

The fact that the primary site of late intrusion of LECs is inside the haptic loop [45] reveals the importance of the haptic configuration for PCO formation, such as broad optic-haptic junction [57–59] and haptics angulation [45]. It has been shown that either less angulation, a better haptic memory, a more c-loop shape of the haptic, and/or a thin and perpendicular insertion of the haptic into the optic, or a combination of these seems to result in a more prolonged and permanent barrier effect against late LEC migration [45]. Nixon and Woodcock [60] compared two 1-piece hydrophobic acrylic IOLs; the authors identified Tecnis AAB00 (AMO) as a continuous optic edge and an AcrySof SA60AT (Alcon) as an interrupted optic edge. Their findings, after 2 years of follow-up, showed that those eyes implanted with a continuous 360-degree square-edge IOL had significantly less PCO than those eyes having a square edge with an interrupted optic-haptic junction IOL. These characteristics—360-degree square-edge, angled haptics, increased optic-haptic space, and increased resistance to compression—help position the IOL against the posterior capsule and promote complete circumferential shrink wrapping of the IOL by the capsule. Nonetheless, recent studies [61–63] have shown that after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, the levels of PCO were low for those eyes implanted with an IOL having a continuous sharp and square optic edge (Tecnis ZCB00, AMO) and for those implanted with an IOL having an interrupted square optic edge (AcrySof SA60AT, Alcon) with no statistically significant differences between the two IOL models. However, they did find higher ACO rates in those eyes implanted with the interrupted optic edge IOL.

On the other hand, studies have consistently failed to reach a consensus on the relative merits of one-piece versus three-piece IOLs per se in protecting against PCO development. Some authors reported more PCO [64] and higher Nd:YAG rates [65] in eyes implanted with a one-piece IOLs compared to three-piece models. The thin haptics of the three-piece IOL is believed to allow for better adhesion between the anterior and posterior capsules and bend formation, compared to the bulky haptics of the one-piece models, which enable enhanced posterior LEC migration. However, other studies showed no significant differences in terms of PCO and Nd:YAG rates between one- and three-piece IOLs [58, 65–70].

There are other features that also exert influence upon PCO formation, such as the presence of aspheric surfaces [71], and optic size [72]. Several studies [73, 74] reported decreased PCO rates when the capsulorhexis is in complete contact with the anterior IOL surface. Meacock et al. [72] reported that larger optic IOLs have a lower PCO; this can be explained by the fact that it is easier to get the capsulorhexis on the IOL with a larger optics. On the other side, the LECs may have an increased ability to migrate from the anterior capsule to the posterior capsule when the anterior capsulorhexis is decentered and the lens is tilted off the posterior capsule [73, 74].

3. Anterior Capsule Opacification

Unlike the equatorial cells, the anterior cells go through fibrous metaplasia but lack the ability to migrate and proliferate and therefore do not appear outside the margins of the capsulorhexis. Capsule opacification may occur on either the anterior or the posterior capsule and is caused by LECs that remain in the evacuated capsular bag [75]. The source of ACO is the anterior epithelial cells, which originate from beneath the anterior lens capsule. These cells can be classified into 2 subpopulations with distinct properties: The equatorial LEC population resides in the equatorial region of the capsular bag, and following capsular bag evacuation, these cells tend to migrate onto the posterior capsule and proliferate. Meanwhile, the anterior LEC population resides on the anterior capsule leaf and has the potential to undergo myofibroblastic transdifferentiation. While PCO has been regeneratory or fibrotic or both, ACO can only be fibrotic. ACO generally occurs at a much earlier stage in comparison to PCO: sometimes, it develops within one month postoperatively [76]. It has been shown that the area of the anterior capsule opening seems to gradually decrease for up to 6 months postoperatively [76, 77].

The process of opacification of the anterior capsule may be split into four stages: (1) fibrosis/opacification of the capsulorhexis margin in some places; (2) the entire anterior capsular edge in contact with the IOL optic’s biomaterial; (3) formation of capsular folds; and (4) advanced/excessive and/or asymmetric shrinkage. Such shrinkage may result in some complications, such as eccentric displacement of the continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) opening, IOL decentration [78], capsulorhexis phimosis, and capsule contraction [79]. Some authors recommend Nd:YAG laser anterior relaxing incisions in the early postoperative period after cataract surgery in order to prevent capsule contraction in high-risk patients (such as those with primary angle closure, pseudoexfoliation, or diabetic retinopathy) [80, 81].

There are different factors that could influence the level of ACO, such as CCC’s initial size; IOL material and design; and some preexisting conditions (e.g., the quality of the zonular support). Some authors reported that if the CCC is smaller than the diameter of the IOL optic, the contact of the optic’s biomaterial with the anterior capsule will induce fibrosis/opacification [82, 83]. Tsuboi et al. [84] studied the influence of the CCC and IOL fixation on the blood-aqueous barrier (BAB). They found an unfavorable effect of in-the-bag fixation with a small CCC and thus a broader contact of the IOL optic with the anterior capsule. On the contrary, Gonvers et al. [85] did not find any correlation between the initial CCC size and the postoperative CCC constriction.

Park et al. [86] evaluated the rate at which the area of the anterior capsule opening decreased following CCC for different IOL types. Although this area reduction occurred for all patients, on average, it was significantly lower in the two acrylic-IOL groups than in the silicone-IOL one. They suggested that IOL selection can be important when it comes to reducing anterior capsule opening contraction, especially for patients at risk for contraction. In this sense, the IOL material and design also play a role in ACO, which is a complication that can impair visual function [87]. Werner et al. [88, 89] evaluated the degree of ACO in postmortem human eyes that had been implanted with IOLs of a wide variety of materials and designs. The results of this histopathological study revealed that ACO is more likely to occur with plate-haptic silicone and hydrogel IOLs than with acrylic hydrophobic IOLs. Nagata et al. [90] also reported a marked anterior capsule contraction with a silicone IOL (AQ310NV, Canon) compared to a hydrophobic acrylic IOL, as well as varying rates of capsule contraction across the range of acrylic IOLs under test (AR40e, AMO; AcrySof MA60BM and SA60AT models, Alcon; and YA60BBR, Hoya), being statistically greater with the AR40e. These results suggest that when implanting an IOL with high surface adhesion, a sharp bend is created in the lens capsule at the rectangular, sharp posterior optic edge of the IOL soon after surgery. This suppresses PCO formation and anterior capsule contraction [78, 91]. In a retrospective study, Tsinopoulos et al. [92] reported significantly greater capsule contraction with hydrophilic IOLs (Quatrix and ACR6D, Corneal Laboratories) than with hydrophobic ones (AcrySof SN60AT, Alcon).

K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi [93] reported that the optic material is the most important factor influencing the degree of capsule contraction, whereas the optic design and haptic material and design play a less significant role. Other studies have shown that plate haptics [85], single-piece designs [94], or IOLs that have a thin optics are risk factors for capsule contraction [95]. Among the four silicone IOL groups assessed by Werner et al. [89], plate-haptic silicone ones yielded significantly higher scores than the 3-piece designs. This correlates well with the findings by Gonvers et al. [85] who claimed that the IOL haptic design (loop-haptic versus plate-haptic) has a major effect on the CCCs’ size change. The excessive CCC constriction observed with plate-haptic IOLs is probably due to the relatively large contact area between the plate haptic silicone material and the anterior capsule, in sharp contrast to three-piece IOLs, with which the contact is limited to the optic’s surface. Thus, the larger surface exposure inherent to plate IOLs may stimulate cell proliferation and fibrosis. Despite these findings, Sacu et al. [96] showed in a recent study that neither the optic material (silicon versus hydrophobic IOLs) nor the haptic design (one-piece versus three-piece open loop) had any influence on the amount of ACO or capsulorhexis contraction.

Several studies reported that capsule contraction has also been associated with some systemic or ocular conditions, such as diabetes mellitus [97–99], pseudoexfoliation syndrome [100], retinitis pigmentosa [101], and uveitis [79]. It may result in a smaller capsulotomy opening, opening malposition, reduction in equatorial capsular diameter, and displacement of the IOL, this effect being more acute for small capsulorhexis openings and older patient [79]. The Nd:YAG laser can be used to perform anterior capsulotomy to increase the size of the anterior capsule opening, but this treatment can lead to other complications, such as IOP elevation, iritis, corneal edema, and damage to the IOL [9].

4. Glistenings

Glistenings are condensations of water within the IOL polymer matrix that occur when the IOL is in an aqueous environment. They are usually distributed throughout the entire IOL optic. They result from the formation of water vacuoles within the lens due to in-the-eye hydration; they are not caused by the deterioration of the material. The mechanism of glistening formation has been extensively evaluated [102]. The polymers that make up the IOLs have different components, including different monomers, chromophores, and crosslinking agents. Polymers absorb water when immersed in an aqueous environment, and their water absorption rate depends on the specific IOL material and the temperature. If the IOL is placed in warm water and the temperature is then lowered, the water inside the polymer becomes oversaturated [103, 104] and, consequently, it separates into phases and collects in a void, generating glistening [105]. In the clinical practice, glistenings typically begin to appear over a 1- to 16-month period after implantation.

Kato et al. [102] found an association between a reduction in temperature and the rate of glistening formation. They studied the changes undergone by a Wagon Wheel packaged AcrySof IOL at various temperatures, placing the IOLs in 37°C or 70°C water, which was then cooled down to 23°C. Microvacuoles of 1.0 to 20.0 μm diameter formed inside the AcrySof IOL when the temperature dropped from 37° to 34°C (3°C decrease), which was enough to trigger vacuole formation. Vacuole density was higher in the IOL that had undergone cooling from 60°C than in the one cooled from only 37°C. In the same paper, the authors also studied temperature changes on the human ocular surface. The temperature of the ocular surface decreased by approximately 7°C when the outer temperature dropped from 45°C to 0°C. As mentioned above, glistening-like vacuole formation can be triggered by a 3°C decrease in body temperature (37°C). Therefore, glistenings may occur in vivo if the lens experienced small aqueous humor temperature fluctuations. Shiba et al. [106] concluded that immersing AcrySof IOLs in warm water (37°C or 60°C) for a short time may alter the IOL’s features. On the contrary, when the lens is left for 6 months in 15°C water, glistening formation is not observed.

Miyata and Yaguchi [107] correlated the degree of glistenings in two different hydrophobic acrylic IOLs, AcrySof MA60BM (Alcon) and Sensar AR40 (AMO), with their equilibrium water content at 30°C, 40°C, and 50°C. The 2 IOLs were also subjected to 3 temperature changes: from 37°C to 35°C, from 39°C to 35°C, and from 41°C to 35°C. IOLs were incubated in a physiological saline solution at the higher temperature for 2 hours and at the lower temperature for 30 days before being assessed for glistening formation. The equilibrium water content was higher in the Sensar IOL than in the AcrySof IOL, but the temperature-related change of the equilibrium water content was greater for the AcrySof IOL. It is in those IOLs whose water content varies significantly with temperature (i.e., temperature-dependent) where phase separation (water and glistenings) occurs. When temperature changed from 37°C to 35°C, glistening formation was not observed in either IOLs, but when it changed from 39°C to 35°C, glistenings were observed in AcrySof IOL, and when it went down from 41°C to 35°C, they were observed in both IOLs.

Glistenings can be evaluated subjectively by means of a slit lamp and by slit lamp photography of the IOL at high magnification. The size and number of glistenings can be quantified by either manual or digital image analysis. Miyata et al. [105] classify glistening into the following grades: 0 = no glistenings; 1 = up to 50/mm³, 2 = up to 100/mm³, and 3 = up to 200/mm³. Some authors also suggested quantifying glistenings employing light scattering. Klos et al. [108] proposed the use of Scheimpflug camera photography for glistening evaluation, as irregularities, damage, or disturbances in the transparency of the IOL material with lower light scattering. Out of the 41 AcrySof IOLs that were evaluated 1 year after implantation, glistenings were observed in all of them and it formed throughout the IOL’s volume. No correlation between visual acuity, scotopic vision, or brightness acuity test and the glistening grade was found. Behndig and Monestam [109] described a method for quantifying glistenings that relied on Scheimpflug photography associated with IOL light scattering quantification using an image analysis program. Glistenings were observed in all AcrySof MA60AT or SA60AT IOLs; its grade correlated well with the length of the postoperative period. They also found that glistenings were more prominent near the IOL surfaces, especially the anterior one. Nevertheless, Mackool and Colin [110] consider that Scheimpflug photography is unsuitable for glistening quantification in IOLs, due to the fact that it has not been confirmed yet that the method is able to distinguish between glistening-related light scatter and light scatter due to other variables, such as the aqueous IOL interface, PCO, or the presence of biological materials on the IOL surface. Glistenings are usually distributed throughout the entire IOL optic [111]. Clinically observed glistenings are usually up to 10 μm in diameter [112], although the size of glistenings observed during in vitro studies goes up to 20 μm [113].

There are several factors influencing glistening formation, such as IOL material composition, manufacturing technique, IOL packaging, follow-up period, IOL diopter power, performance of phacotrabeculectomy, condition such as glaucoma or those that break down the BAB, and specific ocular medications (some anti-inflammatory agents). Glistenings have been observed in a variety of materials [114–118], including silicone, hydrogel, hydrophobic acrylic, and PMMA. However, most of the studies available in the literature on glistening formation describe them in association with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs [114–116]. Tognetto et al. [114] evaluated glistenings in 7 types of foldable IOLs (2 silicone, 3 hydrophilic acrylic, and 2 hydrophobic acrylic). They found varying degrees of glistenings in all IOLs, irrespective of the manufacturing material, but it was the AcrySof group that showed a higher percentage and a greater density of glistenings. Ronbeck et al. [116] assessed lens glistening effects in PMMA, silicone, and hydrophobic acrylic IOLs in a long-term study (11–13 years). The AcrySof hydrophobic acrylic IOL had a significantly higher degree of lens glistenings compared to the silicone and PMMA ones. Although it is likely that the various hydrophobic acrylic materials available on the market exhibit different behaviors in terms of glistening formation [14, 24], most of the peer-reviewed studies found in the literature focus on the AcrySof material, whereas relatively few evaluated other hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.

AcrySof packaging was also found to play an important role in the process of glistening formation. Omar et al. [103] carried out an in vitro study to compare glistening formation in AcrySof acrylic hydrophobic IOLs that relied on either the AcryPack or the Wagon Wheel packaging systems. Glistening formation occurred in both types of packaging, although those AcrySof IOLs packaged in Wagon Wheel did not develop glistenings when kept under constant body temperature. Furthermore, the IOLs in the AcryPack exhibited significantly more microvacuoles. This may be due to the large plastic case that holds the lens and the folding device [103, 111].

Moreno-Montanes et al. [119] studied the clinical factors influencing the frequency and intensity of glistenings by assessing 129 eyes of 94 patients that had undergone phacoemulsification and implantation of an AcrySof MA30BA IOL (Alcon). Glistenings occurred in 38 cases (29.5%) after 20.6 ± 11.5 months postoperatively (range: 1 to 50 months). They found a significant direct correlation between the frequency of glistenings and the following factors: more time elapsed between surgery and evaluation, higher IOL dioptric power, postoperative inflammation, and joint phacotrabeculectomy procedure. As for glistening intensity, it was directly correlated with the time elapsed after the surgery and the presence of postoperative inflammation. Glistenings developed more frequently in cases of phacotrabeculectomy but not after combined phacoemulsification and deep sclerectomy [119]. Other studies also found less glistening formation in lower dioptric power IOLs (≤20.0 D); this could be due to the fact that IOL thickness within a given model usually increases with IOL dioptric power. Therefore, glistenings may be more likely to accumulate in the thicker IOL matrix material in higher power IOLs [120, 121]. Nevertheless, recent studies did not find a significant correlation between the degree of glistenings and the IOL’s dioptric power [116, 122]. As for the time evolution of this phenomenon, most studies show that glistenings increase in frequency and size with time up to approximately 3 years postoperatively [105, 117, 123]. A reasonable hypothesis is that the incidence and degree of glistenings may increase until the IOL is completely hydrated and all available voids within the polymer network are visible as glistenings as a result of temperature fluctuations [115]. Contrariwise, other authors found no significant association between glistening grade and duration of the follow-up period [120, 124].

Glistenings have been found to be associated with some conditions such as glaucoma [120] or those that break down the BAB [125], as well as concurrent medications or ophthalmic solutions. Colin et al. [120] assessed the correlation between clinical and demographic factors in 260 eyes implanted with different AcrySof IOL models. They found a potential association between the frequency of glistenings and the incidence of glaucoma. The authors hypothesized that this was due to an interaction of the material with the pathology of glaucoma or to the chronic topical medication used to lower IOP. Active ingredients or preservatives present in glaucoma medications may lead to the rupture of the BAB, thus modifying the aqueous humor composition and increasing the glistening rate [126, 127]. Schweitzer et al. [128] also found a significant association between the increase of glistenings and the number of topical glaucoma medication that the patient instilled on a daily basis.

Regarding clinical impact, most clinical studies show no association between glistening occurrence and a decrease in visual acuity (Table 2) [24, 119–122, 129, 130]. Nevertheless, there are a few reports on the possible impact upon contrast sensitivity function under specific conditions [112, 131, 132] (Table 2). Colin and Orignac [122] evaluated 97 eyes from 65 patients implanted with an AcrySof IOL at 18 ± 17 months of follow-up. They found that 40% of eyes had grade 0 glistenings, 32% had grade 1, and 28% had grade 2 glistenings. There were no statistically significant differences in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity across glistening-grade groups. They concluded that the intensity of glistenings was not associated with a reduction in visual acuity or contrast sensitivity at any spatial frequency evaluated. In a previous study, Colin et al. [120] evaluated the incidence of severe glistenings in a large series of AcrySof IOL wearers (model SN60AT, SN60WF, SA60AT, or MA) and assessed the potential correlation between glistenings and clinical (length of follow-up, IOL model, IOL power, Nd:YAG capsulotomy, visual acuity, spherical equivalent, ocular and systematic diseases, and medication) and demographic (age and gender) factors. In this retrospective evaluation of a series of 260 AcrySof IOLs which found glistenings in approximately 60% of IOLs, the results suggest a potential association between the incidence of glistenings and IOL power and the presence of glaucoma, but not between glistenings and age, gender, IOL model, length of follow-up, visual acuity reduction, or the presence of any of the most common ocular and systemic diseases and medications. Monestam and Behndig [121] followed 103 eyes implanted with the AcrySof IOL for 10 years. The patients were divided into different groups according to the degree of glistenings. They did not find any impact upon visual function or high- and low-contrast visual acuity, even in patients having severe glistening. Chang and Kugelberg [130] compared the development of glistenings after implantation of hydrophobic (AcrySof SA60AT) and hydrophilic IOLs (BL27). Nine years postoperatively, patients with a hydrophobic IOL developed more glistenings than those with the hydrophilic IOL, but glistenings did not affect visual acuity or contrast sensitivity. On the contrary, Gunenc et al. [131] found statistically significant differences in terms of contrast sensitivity at a high spatial frequency (12 cycles per degree) between eyes where glistening formation had occurred and those eyes that had not developed it. Xi et al. [132] concluded that severe glistenings may have an influence on high spatial frequency contrast sensitivity and reduce light sensitivity, but they did not find any impact on visual acuity. Christiansen et al. [124] reported that all patients (42 eyes) implanted with an AcrySof IOL showed some degree of glistenings. They found statistically significant differences in visual acuity in 24% of the eyes—those having severe glistenings (≥2+)—but there was no evidence that contrast sensitivity had been negatively affected by this glistening phenomenon.

Table 2: Impact of glistenings on visual function with several models of AcrySof intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Author
IOL model
Eyes (n)
Follow-up
Results

Moreno-Montanes et al. [119]
AcrySof MA30BA
129
20 ± 11 months
No impact on visual acuity

Colin et al. [120]
AcrySof SN60AT, SN60WF, SA60AT, or MA
260
0–86 months
No impact on visual acuity

Colin et al. [129]
AcrySof SN60WF
111
±24 months
No impact on visual acuity

Monestam and Behndig [121]
AcrySof MA60BM
103
>10 years
No impact on visual acuity at high and low contrast

Colin and Orignac [122]
Several AcrySof
97
18 months
No impact on visual acuity or contrast sensitivity

Hayashi et al. [133]
AcrySof versus SI30NB versus PMMA
35
>10 years
No impact on visual acuity and aberrometry

Chang et al. [24]
AcrySof SA60AT versus Sensar AR40e
80
5–7 years
No impact on visual acuity or contrast sensitivity

Chang and Kugelberg [130]
AcrySof SA60AT & BL27
120
9 years
No impact on visual acuity or contrast sensitivity

Waite et al. [112]
AcrySof SA & SN60
20
36 months
No impact on visual acuity, aberrometry, and contrast sensitivity but at high spatial frequencies

Gunenc et al. [131]
AcrySof MA30BA & MA60BA
91
7–24 months
Decreased contrast sensitivity at high spatial frequencies

Xi et al. [132]
AcrySof SA60AT
120
2 years
No impact on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity but at high spatial frequencies

Christiansen et al. [124]
AcrySof MA30BA & MA60BM
42
6–46 months
Decreased visual acuity but not glare and contrast sensitivity

Some authors have associated glistenings with intraocular straylight [121, 133–137]. Monestam and Behndig [121] found that most patients that had undergone surgery 10 years before had severe glistening and a high level of light scattering resulting from their IOLs but with no impact on visual acuity at high or low contrast. Hayashi et al. found more glistenings and surface scattering in those eyes implanted with acrylic IOLs versus silicone or PMMA IOLs, but these data were not significantly correlated with visual function or optical aberrations. Recent studies also reported the presence of straylight in eyes implanted with hydrophobic IOLs resulting from subsurface nanoglistenings, but these findings did not lead to visual acuity deterioration [135–137]. In contrast, Colin and Orignac [122] did not show any correlation between glistenings and intraocular light scatter.

Glistenings has decreased noticeably over the last years. A recent study by Thomes and Callaghan [138] reported significantly reduced levels of glistenings, measured in vitro, in newer AcrySof IOL models as a result of the continuous improvements implemented since 2003 in the manufacturing process, including manufacturing equipment, environmental controls, and tightened process controls/specifications. They found an 87% decrease in mean microvacuole density for the AcrySof IOLs manufactured in 2012 versus those produced in 2003. Packer et al. also showed the safety and effectiveness in a glistening-free hydrophobic acrylic IOL (enVista IOL). In a prospective series of 122 subjects, the authors showed no glistenings of any grade for any subject after 6 months of follow-up [139].

5. Conclusions

There is clear evidence that the IOL biomaterial is one of the main factors influencing PCO, ACO, and glistening formation. Most of the studies showed lower PCO rates with hydrophobic than with hydrophilic and PMMA IOL materials due to the effects outlined by Linnola in the “Sandwich theory” [15]. However, there are more controversial findings when comparing hydrophobic and silicone IOL materials: in this setting, there are additional factors that have an influence on the outcome of the cataract procedure. This is due to the fact that these two materials have both optimal properties to prevent PCO formation and, consequently, secondary factors come into play, such as edge design. Indeed, some authors consider the optic edge as the main factor preventing PCO. It has been shown that sharp edges lead to lower PCO formation than round ones, thanks to the barrier that is created, which hinders LEC migration. Nevertheless, not all square edges are the same. Edge sharpness can vary across IOL models, in the same manner that IOL material composition can vary across IOL designs. PCO and Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy rates are influenced by both IOL biomaterials and optic edge design, the best outcomes being observed for hydrophobic or silicone material IOLs having sharp edges. Other factors, such as haptics design, optic size, and the presence of aspheric surfaces, could also have a minor influence on PCO formation.

As for anterior capsule opacification, most authors have reported that ACO rates are lower for hydrophobic than for silicone and, specifically, for hydrophilic IOL materials. Other factors, such as thin optics, plate-haptics and single-piece IOLs, are additional risk factors for capsule contraction.

Glistening formation seems to be directly related with the IOL material and its composition. Most of the studies showed higher levels of glistening formation with hydrophobic IOLs, than with other materials. Nonetheless, most clinical studies showed no correlation between glistening formation and impaired visual performance.

Additional Points

Precis. Although cataract surgery is one of the most common surgeries performed everyday worldwide and technology and products are constantly improving day after day, we can still find undesirable effects following cataract surgery in some patients.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Marie Curie Grant FP7-LIFE-ITN-2013-608049-AGEYE.

References

R. R. A. Bourne, J. B. Jonas, S. R. Flaxman et al., “Prevalence and causes of vision loss in high-income countries and in Eastern and Central Europe: 1990–2010,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 629–638, 2014.

N. Congdon, J. R. Vingerling, B. E. Klein et al., “Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 122, no. 4, pp. 487–494, 2004.

T. Amzallag and J. Pynson, “Lens biomaterials for cataract surgery,” Journal Français d'Ophtalmologie, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 757–767, 2007.

K. Slowinski, M. Misiuk-Hojlo, and M. Szalinski, “Influence of material on biocompatibility of intraocular lenses,” Polimery w Medycynie, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2007.

K. T. Doan, R. J. Olson, and N. Mamalis, “Survey of intraocular lens material and design,” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 24–29, 2002.

J. P. McCulley, “Biocompatibility of intraocular lenses,” Eye & Contact Lens, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 155–163, 2003.

L. Werner, “Biocompatibility of intraocular lens materials,” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 41–49, 2008.

N. Awasthi, S. Guo, and B. J. Wagner, “Posterior capsular opacification: a problem reduced but not yet eradicated,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 555–562, 2009.

C. Billotte and G. Berdeaux, “Adverse clinical consequences of neodymium:YAG laser treatment of posterior capsule opacification,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 2064–2071, 2004.

O. Findl, W. Buehl, P. Bauer, and T. Sycha, “Interventions for preventing posterior capsule opacification,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2, article CD003738, 2010.

J. W. Cheng, R. L. Wei, J. P. Cai et al., “Efficacy of different intraocular lens materials and optic edge designs in preventing posterior capsular opacification: a meta-analysis,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 428–436.e3, 2007.

M. Ronbeck and M. Kugelberg, “Posterior capsule opacification with 3 intraocular lenses: 12-year prospective study,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 2014.

J. Hancox, D. Spalton, G. Cleary et al., “Fellow-eye comparison of posterior capsule opacification with AcrySof SN60AT and AF-1 YA-60BB blue-blocking intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1489–1494, 2008.

C. Leydolt, S. Schriefl, E. Stifter, A. Haszcz, and R. Menapace, “Posterior capsule opacification with the iMics1 NY-60 and AcrySof SN60WF 1-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: 3-year results of a randomized trial,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 375–381.e2, 2013, e372.

R. J. Linnola, “Sandwich theory: bioactivity-based explanation for posterior capsule opacification,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1539–1542, 1997.

R. J. Linnola, M. Sund, R. Ylonen, and T. Pihlajaniemi, “Adhesion of soluble fibronectin, laminin, and collagen type IV to intraocular lens materials,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1486–1491, 1999.

R. J. Linnola, L. Werner, S. K. Pandey, M. Escobar-Gomez, S. L. Znoiko, and D. J. Apple, “Adhesion of fibronectin, vitronectin, laminin, and collagen type IV to intraocular lens materials in pseudophakic human autopsy eyes. Part 2: explanted intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1807–1818, 2000.

R. J. Linnola, L. Werner, S. K. Pandey, M. Escobar-Gomez, S. L. Znoiko, and D. J. Apple, “Adhesion of fibronectin, vitronectin, laminin, and collagen type IV to intraocular lens materials in pseudophakic human autopsy eyes. Part 1: histological sections,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1792–1806, 2000.

K. A. Abhilakh Missier, R. M. M. A. Nuijts, and K. F. Tjia, “Posterior capsule opacification: silicone plate-haptic versus AcrySof intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1569–1574, 2003.

G. Auffarth, A. Brezin, A. Caporossi et al., “Comparison of Nd : YAG capsulotomy rates following phacoemulsification with implantation of PMMA, silicone, or acrylic intra-ocular lenses in four European countries,” Ophthalmic Epidemiology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 319–329, 2004.

L. E. Bender, D. J. Spalton, W. Meacock, R. Jose, and J. Boyce, “Predicting posterior capsule opacification: value of early retroillumination imaging,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 526–531, 2003.

A. M. Bourdiol Ducasse, V. Guerzider, L. Velasque, M. Dominguez, A. Lafuma, and J. Robert, “Comparison of clinical efficacy: Nd:YAG laser rates after implantation of AcrySof® SN60WF, Akreos® AO-MI60 and Hoya® YA-60BB,” Journal Français d'Ophtalmologie, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 575–582, 2013.

C. Boureau, A. Lafuma, V. Jeanbat, G. Berdeaux, and A. F. Smith, “Incidence of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomies after cataract surgery: comparison of 3 square-edged lenses of different composition,” Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 165–170, 2009.

A. Chang, A. Behndig, M. Ronbeck, and M. Kugelberg, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification and glistenings with 2 hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: 5- to 7-year follow-up,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 694–698, 2013.

L. Gauthier, A. Lafuma, C. Laurendeau, and G. Berdeaux, “Neodymium:YAG laser rates after bilateral implantation of hydrophobic or hydrophilic multifocal intraocular lenses: twenty-four month retrospective comparative study,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1195–1200, 2010.

K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi, “Posterior capsule opacification after implantation of a hydrogel intraocular lens,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 182–185, 2004.

C. J. Heatley, D. J. Spalton, A. Kumar, R. Jose, J. Boyce, and L. E. Bender, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification rates between hydrophilic and hydrophobic single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 718–724, 2005.

T. Iwase, Y. Nishi, B. C. Oveson, and Y. J. Jo, “Hydrophobic versus double-square-edged hydrophilic foldable acrylic intraocular lens: effect on posterior capsule opacification,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1060–1068, 2011.

Y. Kucuksumer, S. Bayraktar, S. Sahin, and O. F. Yilmaz, “Posterior capsule opacification 3 years after implantation of an AcrySof and a MemoryLens in fellow eyes,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1176–1182, 2000.

M. Kugelberg, G. Wejde, H. Jayaram, and C. Zetterstrom, “Posterior capsule opacification after implantation of a hydrophilic or a hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens: one-year follow-up,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1627–1631, 2006.

M. Kugelberg, G. Wejde, H. Jayaram, and C. Zetterstrom, “Two-year follow-up of posterior capsule opacification after implantation of a hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 533–536, 2008.

P. J. Morgan-Warren and J. A. Smith, “Intraocular lens-edge design and material factors contributing to posterior-capsulotomy rates: comparing Hoya FY60aD, PY60aD, and AcrySof SN60WF,” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 7, pp. 1661–1667, 2013.

F. H. Oner, U. Gunenc, and S. T. Ferliel, “Posterior capsule opacification after phacoemulsification: foldable acrylic versus poly(methyl methacrylate) intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 722–726, 2000.

A. R. Vasavada, S. M. Raj, A. Shah, G. Shah, V. Vasavada, and V. Vasavada, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification with hydrophobic acrylic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1050–1059, 2011.

O. Nishi, “Posterior capsule opacification. Part 1: experimental investigations,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 106–117, 1999.

J. Ram, D. J. Apple, Q. Peng et al., “Update on fixation of rigid and foldable posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Part II: choosing the correct haptic fixation and intraocular lens design to help eradicate posterior capsule opacification,” Ophthalmology, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 891–900, 1999.

F. Cullin, T. Busch, and M. Lundstrom, “Economic considerations related to choice of intraocular lens (IOL) and posterior capsule opacification frequency – a comparison of three different IOLs,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 179–183, 2014.

C. S.-U. Fong, P. Mitchell, E. Rochtchina, S. Cugati, T. Hong, and J. J. Wang, “Three-year incidence and factors associated with posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery: the Australian Prospective Cataract Surgery and Age-related Macular Degeneration Study,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 171–179.e1, 2014, e171.

K. Hayashi, H. Hayashi, F. Nakao, and F. Hayashi, “Changes in posterior capsule opacification after poly(methyl methacrylate), silicone, and acrylic intraocular lens implantation,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 817–824, 2001.

K. Hayashi, M. Yoshida, and H. Hayashi, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification between fellow eyes with two types of acrylic intraocular lens,” Eye, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 2008.

T. Kohnen, E. Fabian, R. Gerl et al., “Optic edge design as long-term factor for posterior capsular opacification rates,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 1308–1314.e3, 2008.

G. Prosdocimo, G. Tassinari, M. Sala et al., “Posterior capsule opacification after phacoemulsification: silicone CeeOn Edge versus acrylate AcrySof intraocular lens,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1551–1555, 2003.

M. Ronbeck, C. Zetterstrom, G. Wejde, and M. Kugelberg, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification development with 3 intraocular lens types: five-year prospective study,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1935–1940, 2009.

J. Schauersberger, M. Amon, A. Kruger, C. Abela, G. Schild, and J. Kolodjaschna, “Comparison of the biocompatibility of 2 foldable intraocular lenses with sharp optic edges,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1579–1585, 2001.

L. Vock, A. Crnej, O. Findl et al., “Posterior capsule opacification in silicone and hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses with sharp-edge optics six years after surgery,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 147, no. 4, pp. 683–690.e2, 2009, e682.

L. Vock, R. Menapace, E. Stifter, M. Georgopoulos, S. Sacu, and W. Buhl, “Posterior capsule opacification and neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy rates with a round-edged silicone and a sharp-edged hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens 10 years after surgery,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 459–465, 2009.

R. Zemaitiene and V. Jasinskas, “Prevention of posterior capsule opacification with 3 intraocular lens models: a prospective, randomized, long-term clinical trial,” Medicina, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 595–599, 2011.

T. Nagata, A. Minakata, and I. Watanabe, “Adhesiveness of AcrySof to a collagen film,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 367–370, 1998.

M. Ong, L. Wang, and M. Karakelle, “Fibronectin adhesive properties of various intraocular lens materials,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 54, no. 15, p. 819, 2013.

M. W. Dorey, S. Brownstein, V. E. Hill et al., “Proposed pathogenesis for the delayed postoperative opacification of the hydroview hydrogel intraocular lens,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 135, no. 5, pp. 591–598, 2003.

Q. Peng, N. Visessook, D. J. Apple et al., “Surgical prevention of posterior capsule opacification. Part 3: intraocular lens optic barrier effect as a second line of defense,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 198–213, 2000.

G. U. Auffarth, A. Golescu, K. A. Becker, and H. E. Volcker, “Quantification of posterior capsule opacification with round and sharp edge intraocular lenses,” Ophthalmology, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 772–780, 2003.

N. Li, X. Chen, J. Zhang et al., “Effect of AcrySof versus silicone or polymethyl methacrylate intraocular lens on posterior capsule opacification,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 830–838, 2008.

O. Nishi, K. Nishi, J. Akura, and T. Nagata, “Effect of round-edged acrylic intraocular lenses on preventing posterior capsule opacification,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 608–613, 2001.

O. Nishi, K. Nishi, and Y. Osakabe, “Effect of intraocular lenses on preventing posterior capsule opacification: design versus material,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 2170–2176, 2004.

O. Nishi, K. Nishi, and K. Wickstrom, “Preventing lens epithelial cell migration using intraocular lenses with sharp rectangular edges,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1543–1549, 2000.

G. Cleary, D. J. Spalton, J. Hancox, J. Boyce, and J. Marshall, “Randomized intraindividual comparison of posterior capsule opacification between a microincision intraocular lens and a conventional intraocular lens,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 265–272, 2009.

S. Sacu, O. Findl, R. Menapace, W. Buehl, and M. Wirtitsch, “Comparison of posterior capsule opacification between the 1-piece and 3-piece Acrysof intraocular lenses: two-year results of a randomized trial,” Ophthalmology, vol. 111, no. 10, pp. 1840–1846, 2004.

L. Werner, N. Mamalis, A. M. Izak et al., “Posterior capsule opacification in rabbit eyes implanted with 1-piece and 3-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 805–811, 2005.

D. R. Nixon and M. G. Woodcock, “Pattern of posterior capsule opacification models 2 years postoperatively with 2 single-piece acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 929–934, 2010.

C. Leydolt, K. Kriechbaum, S. Schriefl, M. Pachala, and R. Menapace, “Posterior capsule opacification and neodymium:YAG rates with 2 single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: three-year results,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 1886–1892, 2013.

G. Kahraman, H. Schrittwieser, M. Walch et al., “Anterior and posterior capsular opacification with the Tecnis ZCB00 and AcrySof SA60AT IOLs: a randomised intraindividual comparison,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 905–909, 2014.

G. Kahraman, M. Amon, C. Ferdinaro, K. Nigl, and M. Walch, “Intraindividual comparative analysis of capsule opacification after implantation of 2 single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses models: three-year follow-up,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 990–996, 2015.

T. R. Wallin, M. Hinckley, C. Nilson, and R. J. Olson, “A clinical comparison of single-piece and three-piece truncated hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 614–619, 2003.

S. I. Mian, K. Fahim, A. Marcovitch, H. Gada, D. C. Musch, and A. Sugar, “Nd:YAG capsulotomy rates after use of the AcrySof acrylic three piece and one piece intraocular lenses,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 89, no. 11, pp. 1453–1457, 2005.

R. Nejima, K. Miyata, M. Honbou et al., “A prospective, randomised comparison of single and three piece acrylic foldable intraocular lenses,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 746–749, 2004.

L. E. Bender, C. Nimsgern, R. Jose et al., “Effect of 1-piece and 3-piece AcrySof intraocular lenses on the development of posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 786–789, 2004.

C. Leydolt, S. Davidovic, S. Sacu et al., “Long-term effect of 1-piece and 3-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens on posterior capsule opacification: a randomized trial,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 9, pp. 1663–1669, 2007.

R. Zemaitiene, V. Jasinskas, and G. U. Auffarth, “Influence of three-piece and single-piece designs of two sharp-edge optic hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses on the prevention of posterior capsule opacification: a prospective, randomised, long-term clinical trial,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 644–648, 2007.

P. J. Ness, L. Werner, S. Maddula et al., “Pathology of 219 human cadaver eyes with 1-piece or 3-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: capsular bag opacification and sites of square-edged barrier breach,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 923–930, 2011.

J. M. Biber, H. P. Sandoval, R. H. Trivedi, L. E. Fernández de Castro, J. W. French, and K. D. Solomon, “Comparison of the incidence and visual significance of posterior capsule opacification between multifocal spherical, monofocal spherical, and monofocal aspheric intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1234–1238, 2009.

W. R. Meacock, D. J. Spalton, J. F. Boyce, and R. M. Jose, “Effect of optic size on posterior capsule opacification: 5.5 mm versus 6.0 mm AcrySof intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1194–1198, 2001.

G. Wejde, M. Kugelberg, and C. Zetterstrom, “Position of anterior capsulorhexis and posterior capsule opacification,” Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 531–534, 2004.

S. M. E. Wren, D. J. Spalton, R. Jose, J. Boyce, and C. J. Heatley, “Factors that influence the development of posterior capsule opacification with a polyacrylic intraocular lens,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 139, no. 4, pp. 691–695, 2005.

T. Ishibashi, H. Araki, S. Sugai, A. Tawara, Y. Ohnishi, and H. Inomata, “Anterior capsule opacification in monkey eyes with posterior chamber intraocular lenses,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 111, no. 12, pp. 1685–1690, 1993.

C. K. Joo, J. A. Shin, and J. H. Kim, “Capsular opening contraction after continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis and intraocular lens implantation,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 585–590, 1996.

K. Hayashi, H. Hayashi, F. Nakao, and F. Hayashi, “Reduction in the area of the anterior capsule opening after polymethylmethacrylate, silicone, and soft acrylic intraocular lens implantation,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 441–447, 1997.

S. Sacu, R. Menapace, W. Buehl, G. Rainer, and O. Findl, “Effect of intraocular lens optic edge design and material on fibrotic capsule opacification and capsulorhexis contraction,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1875–1882, 2004.

J. A. Davison, “Capsule contraction syndrome,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 582–589, 1993.

K. Hayashi, M. Yoshida, A. Hirata, and H. Hayashi, “Anterior capsule relaxing incisions with neodymium:YAG laser for patients at high-risk for anterior capsule contraction,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 97–103, 2011.

K. Hayashi, M. Yoshida, F. Nakao, and H. Hayashi, “Prevention of anterior capsule contraction by anterior capsule relaxing incisions with neodymium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 23–30.e1, 2008.

S. O. Hansen, A. S. Crandall, and R. J. Olson, “Progressive constriction of the anterior capsular opening following intact capsulorhexis,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–82, 1993.

O. Nishi and K. Nishi, “Intraocular lens encapsulation by shrinkage of the capsulorhexis opening,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 544-545, 1993.

S. Tsuboi, M. Tsujioka, T. Kusube, and S. Kojima, “Effect of continuous circular capsulorhexis and intraocular lens fixation on the blood-aqueous barrier,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 110, no. 8, pp. 1124–1127, 1992.

M. Gonvers, M. Sickenberg, and G. van Melle, “Change in capsulorhexis size after implantation of three types of intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 231–238, 1997.

T. K. Park, S. K. Chung, and N. H. Baek, “Changes in the area of the anterior capsule opening after intraocular lens implantation,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1613–1617, 2002.

K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi, “Effect of anterior capsule contraction on visual function after cataract surgery,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1936–1940, 2007.

L. Werner, S. K. Pandey, D. J. Apple, M. Escobar-Gomez, L. McLendon, and T. A. Macky, “Anterior capsule opacification: correlation of pathologic findings with clinical sequelae,” Ophthalmology, vol. 108, no. 9, pp. 1675–1681, 2001.

L. Werner, S. K. Pandey, M. Escobar-Gomez, N. Visessook, Q. Peng, and D. J. Apple, “Anterior capsule opacification: a histopathological study comparing different IOL styles,” Ophthalmology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 463–471, 2000.

M. Nagata, H. Matsushima, K. Mukai, W. Terauchi, N. Gotoh, and E. Matsui, “Comparison of anterior capsule contraction between 5 foldable intraocular lens models,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1495–1498, 2008.

O. Nishi, K. Nishi, and K. Sakanishi, “Inhibition of migrating lens epithelial cells at the capsular bend created by the rectangular optic edge of a posterior chamber intraocular lens,” Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 587–594, 1998.

I. T. Tsinopoulos, K. T. Tsaousis, G. D. Kymionis et al., “Comparison of anterior capsule contraction between hydrophobic and hydrophilic intraocular lens models,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 248, no. 8, pp. 1155–1158, 2010.

K. Hayashi and H. Hayashi, “Intraocular lens factors that may affect anterior capsule contraction,” Ophthalmology, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 286–292, 2005.

G. Savini, P. Barboni, P. Ducoli, E. Borrelli, and K. J. Hoffer, “Influence of intraocular lens haptic design on refractive error,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1473–1478, 2014.

M. Sickenberg, M. Gonvers, and G. van Melle, “Change in capsulorhexis size with four foldable loop-haptic lenses over 6 months,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 925–930, 1998.

S. Sacu, R. Menapace, and O. Findl, “Effect of optic material and haptic design on anterior capsule opacification and capsulorrhexis contraction,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 488–493.e2, 2006.

H. Hayashi, K. Hayashi, F. Nakao, and F. Hayashi, “Area reduction in the anterior capsule opening in eyes of diabetes mellitus patients,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1105–1110, 1998.

S. Kato, T. Oshika, J. Numaga et al., “Anterior capsular contraction after cataract surgery in eyes of diabetic patients,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 21–23, 2001.

Y. Takamura, T. Tomomatsu, S. Arimura et al., “Anterior capsule contraction and flare intensity in the early stages after cataract surgery in eyes with diabetic retinopathy,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 716–721, 2013.

H. Hayashi, K. Hayashi, F. Nakao, and F. Hayashi, “Anterior capsule contraction and intraocular lens dislocation in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome,” The British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 1429–1432, 1998.

K. Hayashi, H. Hayashi, K. Matsuo, F. Nakao, and F. Hayashi, “Anterior capsule contraction and intraocular lens dislocation after implant surgery in eyes with retinitis pigmentosa,” Ophthalmology, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 1239–1243, 1998.

K. Kato, M. Nishida, H. Yamane, K. Nakamae, Y. Tagami, and K. Tetsumoto, “Glistening formation in an AcrySof lens initiated by spinodal decomposition of the polymer network by temperature change,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1493–1498, 2001.

O. Omar, A. Pirayesh, N. Mamalis, and R. J. Olson, “In vitro analysis of AcrySof intraocular lens glistenings in AcryPak and Wagon Wheel packaging,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 107–113, 1998.

P. Tyagi, N. Shah, and M. Jabir, “Intraoperative clouding of a posterior chamber intraocular lens,” International Ophthalmology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 483-484, 2011.

A. Miyata, N. Uchida, K. Nakajima, and S. Yaguchi, “Clinical and experimental observation of glistening in acrylic intraocular lenses,” Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 564–569, 2001.

T. Shiba, K. Mitooka, and H. Tsuneoka, “In vitro analysis of AcrySof intraocular lens glistening,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 13, no. 9-10, pp. 759–763, 2003.

A. Miyata and S. Yaguchi, “Equilibrium water content and glistenings in acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1768–1772, 2004.

K. M. Klos, R. Richter, O.-E. Schnaudigel, and C. Ohrloff, “Image analysis of implanted rigid and foldable intraocular lenses in human eyes using Scheimpflug photography,” Ophthalmic Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 130–133, 1999.

A. Behndig and E. Monestam, “Quantification of glistenings in intraocular lenses using Scheimpflug photography,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 14–17, 2009.

R. J. Mackool and J. Colin, “Limitations of Scheimpflug photography in quantifying glistenings,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1480-1481, 2009.

D. K. Dhaliwal, N. Mamalis, R. J. Olson et al., “Visual significance of glistenings seen in the AcrySof intraocular lens,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 452–457, 1996.

A. Waite, N. Faulkner, and R. J. Olson, “Glistenings in the single-piece, hydrophobic, acrylic intraocular lenses,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 143-144, 2007.

M. Miura, M. Osako, A. E. Elsner, H. Kajizuka, K. Yamada, and M. Usui, “Birefringence of intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1549–1555, 2004.

D. Tognetto, L. Toto, G. Sanguinetti, and G. Ravalico, “Glistenings in foldable intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1211–1216, 2002.

L. Werner, “Glistenings and surface light scattering in intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1398–1420, 2010.

M. Ronbeck, A. Behndig, M. Taube, A. Koivula, and M. Kugelberg, “Comparison of glistenings in intraocular lenses with three different materials: 12-year follow-up,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 66–70, 2013.

E. Wilkins and R. J. Olson, “Glistenings with long-term follow-up of the Surgidev B20/20 polymethylmethacrylate intraocular lens,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 783–785, 2001.

T. Maki, S. Izumi, M. Ayaki, and R. Koide, “Glistenings in PMMA intraocular lenses,” The Showa University Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 75–82, 2004.

J. Moreno-Montanes, A. Alvarez, R. Rodriguez-Conde, and A. Fernandez-Hortelano, “Clinical factors related to the frequency and intensity of glistenings in AcrySof intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1980–1984, 2003.

J. Colin, I. Orignac, and D. Touboul, “Glistenings in a large series of hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2121–2126, 2009.

E. Monestam and A. Behndig, “Impact on visual function from light scattering and glistenings in intraocular lenses, a long‐term study,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 89, no. 8, pp. 724–728, 2011.

J. Colin and I. Orignac, “Glistenings on intraocular lenses in healthy eyes: effects and associations,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 869–875, 2011.

E. Peetermans and R. Hennekes, “Long-term results of wagon wheel packed acrylic intra-ocular lenses (AcrySof),” Bulletin de la Société Belge d'Ophtalmologie, vol. 271, pp. 45–48, 1999.

G. Christiansen, F. J. Durcan, R. J. Olson, and K. Christiansen, “Glistenings in the AcrySof intraocular lens: pilot study,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 728–733, 2001.

H. B. Dick, R. J. Olson, A. J. Augustin, O. Schwenn, G. Magdowski, and N. Pfeiffer, “Vacuoles in the Acrysof™ intraocular lens as factor of the presence of serum in aqueous humor,” Ophthalmic Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 61–67, 2001.

M. Ayaki, H. Nishihara, S. Yaguchi, and R. Koide, “Surfactant induced glistenings: surface active ingredients in ophthalmic solutions may enhance water entry into the voids of implanted acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 451–457, 2006.

M. Ayaki, H. Nishihara, S. Yaguchi, and R. Koide, “Effect of ophthalmic solution components on acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 122–126, 2007.

C. Schweitzer, I. Orignac, D. Praud, O. Chatoux, and J. Colin, “Glistening in glaucomatous eyes: visual performances and risk factors,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 529–534, 2014.

J. Colin, D. Praud, D. Touboul, and C. Schweitzer, “Incidence of glistenings with the latest generation of yellow-tinted hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1140–1146, 2012.

A. Chang and M. Kugelberg, “Glistenings 9 years after phacoemulsification in hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1199–1204, 2015.

U. Gunenc, F. H. Oner, S. Tongal, and M. Ferliel, “Effects on visual function of glistenings and folding marks in AcrySof intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1611–1614, 2001.

L. Xi, Y. Liu, F. Zhao, C. Chen, and B. Cheng, “Analysis of glistenings in hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses on visual performance,” International Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 446–451, 2014.

K. Hayashi, A. Hirata, M. Yoshida, K. Yoshimura, and H. Hayashi, “Long-term effect of surface light scattering and glistenings of intraocular lenses on visual function,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 154, no. 2, pp. 240–251.e2, 2012.

M. van der Mooren, L. Franssen, and P. Piers, “Effects of glistenings in intraocular lenses,” Biomedical Optics Express, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1294–1304, 2013.

S. Beheregaray, T. Yamamoto, T. Hiraoka, and T. Oshika, “Influence on visual function of forward light scattering associated with subsurface nanoglistenings in intraocular lenses,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1147–1154, 2014.

B. S. Henriksen, K. Kinard, and R. J. Olson, “Effect of intraocular lens glistening size on visual quality,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1190–1198, 2015.

L. Werner, J. C. Stover, J. Schwiegerling, and K. K. Das, “Light scattering, straylight, and optical quality in hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses with subsurface nanoglistenings,” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 148–156, 2016.

B. E. Thomes and T. A. Callaghan, “Evaluation of in vitro glistening formation in hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses,” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 7, pp. 1529–1534, 2013.

M. Packer, L. Fry, K. T. Lavery et al., “Safety and effectiveness of a glistening-free single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (enVista),” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 7, pp. 1905–1912, 2013.