Russian Experience of Using Different Types of Preloaded Intraocular Lens Delivery System

Objectives: To obtain information on the frequency of using preloaded IOL delivery system, the time of the IOL implantation procedure, the convenience of using various preloaded systems, the incidence of complications and the overall level of satisfaction during the work by ophthalmologists during a survey of experts.

Methods. A survey was conducted among 14 Russian experts from different regions who already have practical experience with the following preloaded IOL implantation systems: RayOne® Aspheric (RAO600C), iSert® (250/251), iTec (Tecnis®1) and AutonoMe™ (Clareon®). The evaluation was carried out on a 10-point scale for parameters related to IOL implantation safety when using preloaded systems, convenience and intuitive operation, the level of control over the IOL implantation process, and the overall total time required to complete the entire IOL implantation procedure.

Results. Among all the parameters, the experts gave the highest safety rating of the IOL implantation when using preloaded systems; in general, quite high scores were also assigned to the other parameters, reflecting satisfaction with the work by the experts. In a comparative analysis of the parameters of IOL implantation safety, convenience and intuitive operation, the level of control over the IOL implantation process, as well as the total time required for the entire IOL implantation procedure, depending on the type of preloaded systems, significant differences were obtained (p = 0.012, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, p = 0.014, p = 0.004, respectively). Frow the 4 analyzed system types, AutonoMe™ (Clareon®) achieved the highest scores across all dimensions (10.0, 9.0, 10.0, 9.0 and 9.5, respectively).

Conclusion. This experts’ survey is the first Russian experience of evaluating the real practice of working with different types of preloaded systems for implanting IOLs. The survey indicated that the greatest application experience currently exists with the preloaded AutonoMe™ (Clareon®) system, which scored higher across all analyzed parameters when compared to systems from other manufacturers. 

1. Brian G., Taylor H. Cataract blindness — challenges for the 21 century. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2015;79:249–256.

2. Prevent Blindness America. Vision problems in the U.S.: prevalence of adult vision impairment and age-related eye disease in America, update to the fourth edition. Schaumburg, IL. 2008;23.

3. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators; Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study [published correction appears in Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Apr;9(4):e408]. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e144–e160. DOI: 10.1016/S2214109X(20)30489-7

4. Kantemirova R.K., Mamedova I.D., Klyushnikova E.V., Trofimova S.V. Quality of Life of Patients with Cataract as the Most Important Medical and Social Determinant in the Elderly and Old Age. Physiсal and Rehabilitation Medicine = Fizicheskaya i reabilitatsionnaya meditsina. 2020;2(4):65– 74 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26211/2658-4522-2020-2-4-65-74

5. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD 2019 Cause and Risk Summary: [Cataract — Level 4 cause]. Accessed [26.01.2022]. Seattle, USA: IHME, University of Washington, 2020. URL: https://www.healthdata.org/results/gbd_summaries/2019/cataract-level-4-cause

6. Kobyakova O.S., Deev I.A., Boikov V.A., Mil’kevich M.N., Kulikov E.S., Naumov A.O., Golubeva A.A., Shibalkov I.P. Possible application of DALY to health assemessment of population in Russia. Social aspects of population health = Sotsial’nye aspekty zdorov’ya naseleniya. 2015;2(42):3 (In Russ.).

7. Olson R.J., Braga-Mele R., Chen S.H., Miller K.M., Pineda R., Tweeten J.P., Musch D.C. Cataract in the adult eye preferred practice pattern®. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(2):1–119. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.027

8. Jones J.J., Chu J., Graham J., Zaluski S., Rocha G. The impact of a preloaded intraocular lens delivery system on operating room efficiency in routine cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1123–1129. Published 2016 Jun 17. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH. S107726

9. Nanavaty M.A., Kubrak-Kisza M. Evaluation of preloaded intraocular lens injection systems: ex vivo study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(4):558–563. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.02.019

10. Masket S., Wang L., Belani S. Induced astigmatism with 2.2and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(1):21–24. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090101-04

11. Berdahl J.P., DeStafeno J.J., Kim T. Corneal wound architecture and integrity after phacoemulsification evaluation of coaxial, microincision coaxial, and microincision bimanual techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(3):510–515. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.11.012

12. Mayer E., Cadman D., Ewings P., Twomey J.M., Gray R.H., Claridge K.G., Hakin K.N., Bates A.K. A 10-year retrospective survey of cataract surgery and endophthalmitis in a single eye unit: injectable lenses lower the incidence of endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(7):867–869. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.7.86711

13. Simon J.W., Ngo Y., Khan S., Strogatz D. Surgical confusions in ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(11):1515–1522. DOI: 10.100 1/archopht.125.11.1515

14. Pershin K.B., Pashinova N.F., Tsygankov A.I., Korneeva E.A. Efficacy and Safety Analysis of the New Aspheric Hydrophobic Acrylic Monofocal IOL Implantation at Short-Term Follow-Up. Ophthalmology in Russia = Oftal’mologija. 2021;18(4):845–851 (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.18008/1816-50952021-4-845-851

15. Weston K., Nicholson R., Bunce C., Yang Y.F. An 8-year retrospective study of cataract surgery and postoperative endophthalmitis: injectable intraocular lenses may reduce the incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(10):1377–1380. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-30637213

16. Mendicute J., Amzallag T., Wang L., Martinez A.A. Comparison of incision size and intraocular lens performance after implantation with three preloaded systems and one manual delivery system. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1495–1503. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S16677614

17. Khokhar S., Sharma R., Patil B., Aron N., Gupta S. Comparison of new motorized injector vs manual injector for implantation of foldable intraocular lenses on wound integrity: an ASOCT study. Eye (Lond). 2014;28(10):1174–1178. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2014.16215

18. Acar B., Torun I.M., Acar S. Evaluation of preloaded IOL delivery system and hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens in cataract surgery. Open Ophthalmol J. 2018;12(1):94–103. DOI: 10.2174/187436410181201009416

19. Haldipurkar S.S., Shetty V., Haldipurkar T., Dhamankar R., Sehdev N., Khatib Z., Nagvekar P., Mhatre P., Setia M.S. Incision size changes after cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: comparison of 2 preloaded IOL implantation injectors. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(2):222–227. DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000014

20. Wang L., Wolfe P., Chernosky A., Paliwal S., Tjia K., Lane S. In vitro delivery performance assessment of a new preloaded intraocular lens delivery system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(12):1814–1820. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.014

21. Mendicute J., Bascarán L., Pablo L., Schweitzer C., Velasque L., Bouchet C., Martinez A.A. Multicenter Evaluation of Time, Operational, and Economic Efficiencies of a New Preloaded Intraocular Lens Delivery System versus Manual Intraocular Lens Delivery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:591–599. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S263658

22. Horton S., Gelband H., Jamison D., Levin C., Nugent R., Watkins D. Ranking 93 health interventions for lowand middle-income countries by cost-effectiveness. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0182951. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182951

23. Lansingh V.C., Carter M.J., Martens M. Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(9):1670–1678. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.12.013

24. Tahhan N., Papas E., Fricke T.R., Frick K.D., Holden B.A. Utility and uncorrected refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1736–1744. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.014