RESUMEN
PURPOSE:: To compare surface alterations between preloaded and manually loaded intraocular lens. METHODS:: Scanning electron microscope was utilized to evaluate surface alteration and deposits in four different types of intraocular lenses: preloaded hydrophobic acrylic, preloaded hydrophilic acrylic, manually loaded hydrophobic acrylic, and manually loaded hydrophilic acrylic. Six lenses with different powers (+6 D, +22 D, and +29 D) were used from each category, to represent different thickness categories of the intraocular lenses. RESULTS:: In total, 30 intraocular lenses have been evaluated in this study: 4 from the control group (2 hydrophobic and 2 hydrophilic lenses) and 12 from the preloaded intraocular lens and manually loaded groups (6 hydrophilic and 6 hydrophobic lenses with different powers). Surface deposits were found in eight hydrophobic intraocular lenses compared to a single intraocular lens with scattered deposits on the optical surface of a hydrophilic intraocular lens. In manually loaded intraocular lens group, five hydrophobic and one hydrophilic intraocular lenses showed identifiable marks on the optical surface. In the preloaded intraocular lens group, three hydrophobic intraocular lenses showed identifiable marks on the optical surface and three hydrophobic intraocular lenses showed surface wrinkling. All hydrophilic intraocular lenses revealed no identifiable marks. CONCLUSION:: Surface alterations and deposits are a common finding in both preloaded and manually loaded intraocular lenses. Water content of acrylic intraocular lenses is an important factor predisposing to these changes, and hydrophobic intraocular lenses are more vulnerable than hydrophilic lenses. The impact on the final visual outcome needs further studies.
