Financial disclosure: Guy Kleinmann1, Roy Alon2 ... - Hanita Lenses

Guy Kleinmann 1 , Roy Alon 2 ,Ehud I. Assia 2[1] Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel[2] Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, IsraelFinancial disclosure:The study was supported by a grant from Hanita Lenses, IsraelDr. Kleinmann and Prof. Assia are consultants for Hanita Lenses, Israel

To investigate the ability of the PID to preventPCO using hydrophilic and hydrophobic materialsand IOLs

Dimensions for rabbit trial:*patent pendingTotal Diameter: 11 mmDevice height: 1.5 mmHydrophilic andhydrophobic rings

Both IOLs:Total Diameter: 13 mmOptic diameter: 6 mm360 0 square edgeTecnis(AMO)Hydrophobic IOLSeeLens AF(Hanita Lenses)Hydrophilic IOL

36 NZW rabbit eyes were divided into six groups andimplanted, after lens removal, as following:Control (IOL only)Hydrophilic ring(Hanita Lenses)Hydrophobic ring(Hanita Lenses)Hydrophilic IOL(SeeLens, Hanita Lenses)6 eyes6 eyes6 eyesHydrophobic IOL(Tecnis, AMO)6 eyes6 eyes6 eyes Following tests were performed: Slit Lamp and Miyake Apple evaluation at 6 weeks Histopathological evaluation

Implantation of hydrophilic ring was easier, andcan be compared to standard IOL implantation Insertion of IOL haptics into the PID groove wasnot automatic and required manipulations Ovalization due to largediameter of the ring The capsule remained open

75% less PCOcompared tocontrolControlRingPCO score*:Control (IOL only)Hydrophilic ring**Hydrophobic ring**Hydrophilic IOL2.7 ± 1.10.6 ± 0.60.7 ± 0.7**P-value

ControlRingSignificant reduction in Soemmering’s ring development in test groups

Region of Soemmering’s ring coverage wasmanually marked and analyzed using MatlabsoftwareSoemmering’s ringRegion of interest(bag excludingoptical zone)

80% lessSoemmering’s ringcoverage comparedto controlControlSoemmering’s ring coverage *:Hydrophilic IOLRingHydrophobic IOLControl (IOL only)Hydrophilic ringHydrophobic ring52 ± 10 mm 2 (92%)9.6 ± 6 mm 2 (17%)14.6 ± 9 mm 2 (22%)52 ± 8 mm 2 (95%)13.6 ± 7 mm 2 (22%)11 ± 11 mm 2 (15%)[*] 0% (clear capsule) to 100% (full coverage)

Control group:

Control group:

Test group:

Test group:

Test group:

Test group: atypical observation

Histological PCOgradingHydrophilic IOLHydrophobic IOLControl (IOL only)Hydrophilic ringHydrophobic ring2.21.3 (35%↓)0.6 (73%↓)2.80.7 (75%↓)0.6 (79%↓)*Grade 0 - no LEC proliferation, grade 4 – above 10 layers of LEC proliferation

Encouraging PCO prevention results for both ring materialsNo significant difference between hydrophilic andhydrophobic IOLsOur results suggested primary PCO preventionMechanism not completely clear: Open capsule? Windows in the PID design – prevention of ischemia?

Thank you!