Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Comparison of the Ultraviolet Light Filtering across Different Intraocular Lenses

García-Domene, Mari Carmen, PhD1,2*; Pérez-Vives, Caridad, PhD3,4; Peris-Martínez, Cristina, PhD1; Artigas, José María, PhD1,2

doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001309

SIGNIFICANCE We have analyzed the ultraviolet transmittance of some commercial intraocular lenses (IOLs). The results show differences of wavelength cutoff among them.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the ultraviolet light transmittance of different IOLs made out of acrylic hydrophobic, hydrophilic, and hydrophilic with hydrophobic surface materials from different manufacturers.

METHODS The spectral transmission curves of eight monofocal IOLs with the same dioptric power of +20.0 diopters were measured using a PerkinElmer Lambda 35 ultraviolet/visible spectrometer. Two IOLs of each type were tested three times. The ultraviolet cutoff wavelength at 10% transmission and the mean values were calculated.

RESULTS All lenses prevented transmission of ultraviolet C (200 to 280 nm) and B radiation (280 to 315 nm). However, not all IOLs provided the same filtering properties in ultraviolet A (315 to 380 nm). Within the ultraviolet A range, the ultraviolet radiation cutoff wavelength of 10% ranges from approximately 360 to 400 nm. HOYA iSert 250 provided a cutoff wavelength of 398.4 nm; AcrySof SA60AT, 396.2 nm; AcrySof SA60WF, 395.7 nm; CT Asphina 404, 378.34 nm; Tecnis ZCB00, 377.70 nm; CT Lucia 607P, 379 nm; C-Flex 570C, 377 nm; and enVista MX60, 360 nm.

CONCLUSIONS Intraocular lenses of different materials and manufacturers have different ultraviolet transmission characteristics. AcrySof (SA60AT and SA60WF) and HOYA iSert 250 provided the highest ultraviolet radiation transmission; the cutoff wavelength of 10% is close to 400 nm. In contrast, enVista IOL showed the lowest ultraviolet radiation cutoff.

1FISABIO-Oftalmología Médica, Valencia, Spain

2Dpto. de Óptica y Optometría y Ciencias de la Visión, Facultad de Física, Universidad de Valencia, Burjassot, Valencia, Spain

3Optometry Research Group, Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision Science, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

4Alcon Management SA, Geneva, Switzerland *

Submitted: December 15, 2017

Accepted: August 6, 2018

Funding/Support: None of the authors have reported funding/support.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest in the publication of this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: MCG-D, CP-V, JMA; Data Curation: MCG-D, CP-V; Formal Analysis: MCG-D, CP-V; Investigation: MCG-D, CP-M, JMA; Methodology: MCG-D, JMA; Supervision: CP-M, JMA; Validation: CP-M, JMA; Writing – Original Draft: MCG-D, CP-V; Writing – Review & Editing: MCG-D, CP-M, JMA.

© 2018 American Academy of Optometry