Comparative evaluation of an automated preloaded delivery system with a non-preloaded system

PURPOSE: To evaluate a single surgeon’s experience with an automated preloaded intraocular lens (IOL) delivery system and a nonpreloaded system. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational case series. Phacoemulsification was performed under topical anesthesia by creating a temporal clear corneal incision. Patients were consecutively assigned to either the Clareon group (n = 50; the IOL was injected into the capsular bag by using an automated injector system) or the AcrySof group (n = 50; the IOL was injected into the capsular bag by using a conventional injector system). The main outcome measures were ease of implantation, intraoperative complications, postoperative centration, and visual acuity. RESULTS: Additional manipulation in the anterior chamber was not required in 38 (74%) eyes in the Clareon group and 41 (82%) eyes in the AcrySof group. However, seven eyes in the Clareon group and one eye in the AcrySof group required trailing haptic dislodgement from the optic. Furthermore, two eyes in the Clareon group and five eyes in the AcrySof group required injector rotation (varying from 10° to 90°) in the wound. Moreover, in two eyes of the Clareon group, the silicon plunger of the injector system crossed over the optic. None of the patients developed iris trauma and PCR during IOL manipulation. All the IOLs were centered in the capsular bag. CONCLUSION: The automated IOL delivery system enables the controlled delivery of an IOL in the capsular bag. The effect of carbon footprints created by plastic generated from the delivery system and the implications of the CO(2) cylinder on the environment should be addressed.