Geometry of Acrylic, Hydrophobic IOLs and Changes in Haptic–Capsular Bag Relationship According to Compression and Different Well Diameters: A Bench Study Using Computed Tomography

INTRODUCTION: Characteristics of the haptics and optic–haptic junction (OHJ) of an intraocular lens (IOL) affect IOL position in the capsular bag, positional stability, and the development of posterior capsule opacification. Therefore, the haptics and OHJ have a role in determining initial and long-term visual outcomes after cataract surgery. Understanding differences in the haptics and OHJ of available IOLs and in the relationships between the haptics of each IOL and the capsular bag across a range of capsular bag sizes might inform selection of an IOL model for individuals. PURPOSE: To evaluate the geometry of five currently marketed, commonly used one-piece hydrophobic acrylic monofocal IOLs and changes in haptic–capsular bag relationships according to capsular bag size using a range of compression well diameters. METHODS: AcrySof SN60WF, CT LUCIA 621PY, enVista MX60, TECNIS ZCB00, and Vivinex XY1 IOLs were scanned with computed tomography (CT) in a dry, uncompressed state for quantitative analyses of haptic and OHJ dimensions and qualitative assessment of geometry. CT scanning was done after IOL placement into a series of compression wells (11.5, 11.0, 10.0, and 9.0 mm) for analyses of haptic angle of contact (AoC) and capsular bag contact (CBC). IOL axial alignment and haptic–capsular bag relationships were assessed on side-view and 3-dimensional top-view images, respectively. RESULTS: The qualitative and quantitative evaluations highlighted differences in haptic and OHJ geometry and dimensions across the five IOLs. All haptic dimensions (length, thickness, surface area, volume) and all OHJ dimensions (surface area and volume) were greatest for the CT LUCIA 621PY IOL. Compared to the IOL that had the smallest measurement for each parameter, the value for the CT LUCIA 621PY IOL was 31–91% larger. The lens with the largest OHJ surface area and volume showed values that were 500% and 240% greater than the corresponding values for the lens with the smallest OHJ surface area and OHJ volume. The AoC and CBC values decreased with increasing well size for all IOLs. The CT LUCIA 621PY had the greatest AoC and CBC values for all well sizes and the smallest percentage change in AoC and CBC comparing the values from the 9.0 mm and 11.5 mm wells. CONCLUSION: The in vitro evaluations in this study highlight differences in the haptic and OHJ geometric characteristics of the five IOLs studied. The collected evidence refutes opinions that all hydrophobic acrylic one-piece IOLs are the same and supports the idea that individual IOLs can have relative advantages and disadvantages that depend on the individual case. We believe the knowledge of geometry is necessary for the surgeon to have the opportunity to select the best “customized” option in the individual case as a result of anatomical conditions and secondary diagnoses. Our bench study shows how big the differences are in currently available monofocal hydrophobic acrylic lenses.