The present invention relates to intraocular lenses (IOLs) for implantation in an aphakic eye where the natural lens has been removed due to damage or disease (e.g., a cataractous lens). The present invention more particularly relates to a novel IOL designed to inhibit the unwanted growth of lens epithelial cells (LECs) between the IOL and posterior capsular bag, also known as posterior capsule opacification or “PCO” to those skilled in the art.
A common and desirable method of treating a cataract eye is to remove the clouded, natural lens and replace it with an artificial IOL in a surgical procedure known as cataract extraction. In the extracapsular extraction method, the natural lens is removed from the capsular bag while leaving the posterior part of the capsular bag (and preferably at least part of the anterior part of the capsular bag) in place within the eye. In this instance, the capsular bag remains anchored to the eye's ciliary body through the zonular fibers. In an alternate procedure known as intracapsular extraction, both the lens and capsular bag are removed in their entirety by severing the zonular fibers and replaced with an IOL which must be anchored within the eye absent the capsular bag. The intracapsular extraction method is considered less attractive as compared to the extracapsular extraction method since in the extracapsular method, the capsular bag remains attached to the eye's ciliary body and thus provides a natural centering and locating means for the IOL within the eye. The capsular bag also continues its function of providing a natural barrier between the aqueous humor at the front of the eye and the vitreous humor at the rear of the eye.
One known problem with extracapsular cataract extraction is posterior capsule opacification, or secondary cataract, where proliferation and migration of lens epithelial cells occur along the posterior capsule behind the IOL posterior surface which creates an opacification of the capsule along the optical axis. This requires subsequent surgery, such as an Er:YAG laser capsulotomy, to open the posterior capsule and thereby clear the optical axis. Undesirable complications may follow the capsulotomy. For example, since the posterior capsule provides a natural barrier between the back of the eye vitreous humor and front of the eye aqueous humor, removal of the posterior capsule allows the vitreous humor to migrate into the aqueous humor which can result in serious, sight-threatening complications. It is therefore highly desirable to prevent posterior capsule opacification in the first place and thereby obviate the need for a subsequent posterior capsulotomy.
Various methods have been proposed in the art to prevent or at least minimize PCO and thus also the number of Er:YAG laser capsultomies required as a result of PCO. These PCO prevention methods include two main categories: mechanical means and pharmaceutical means.
In the mechanical means category of PCO prevention, efforts have been directed at creating a sharp, discontinuous bend in the posterior capsule wall which is widely recognized by those skilled in the art as an effective method for minimizing PCO. See, for example, Posterior Capsule Opacification by Nishi, Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, Vol. 25, January 1999. This discontinuous bend in the posterior capsule wall can be created using an IOL having a posterior edge which forms a sharp edge with the peripheral wall of the IOL.
In the pharmaceutical means of PCO prevention, it has been proposed to eliminate LEC and/or inhibit LEC mitosis by using an LEC-targeted pharmaceutical agent. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,620,013 to Bretton entitled “Method For Destroying Residual Lens Epithelial Cells”. While this approach is logical in theory, putting such a method into clinical practice is difficult due to complications arising, for example, from the toxicity of some of the LEC inhibiting agents themselves (e.g., saporin), as well as the difficulty in ensuring a total kill of all LECs in the capsular bag. Any remaining LECs may eventually multiply and migrate over the IOL, eventually resulting in PCO despite the attempt at LEC removal at the time of surgery.
By far the most promising method for inhibiting LEC formation on the posterior surface of an IOL is the mechanical means, i.e., by designing the IOL to have a sharp peripheral edge particularly at the posterior surface—peripheral edge juncture to create a discontinuous bend in the posterior capsule wall. This discontinuous bend in the posterior capsule wall has been clinically proven to inhibit the growth and migration of LECs past this bend and along the IOL surface. One of the early reports of this PCO-inhibiting effect of a planoconvex IOL may be found in Explanation of Endocapsule Posterior Chamber Lens After Spontaneous Posterior Dislocation by Nishi et al, J Cataract & Refractive Surgery-Vol 22, March 1996 at page 273 wherein the authors examined an explanated planoconvex PMMA IOL where the posterior surface of the IOL was planar and formed a square edge with the peripheral edge of the IOL:
Thus, in the years since this report, the industry has seen much activity on creating IOLs with sharp posterior edges so as to create a sharp, discontinuous bend in the posterior capsule wall. While IOLs having a sharp posterior edge have proven to inhibit PCO compared to IOLs having rounded edges at the posterior surface-peripheral edge juncture, there still remains the possibility of LECs migrating along the posterior capsule and behind the IOL surface, especially if there is uneven contact and force of the IOL periphery with the capsular bag. This may happen, for example, should the IOL move within the capsular bag following surgery. There therefore remains a need for an improved IOL design which addresses the problem of LEC migration and subsequent PCO formation despite having an IOL with a single sharp posterior edge.
The present invention addresses the problem of PCO formation beyond the first sharp posterior edge of an IOL by providing an IOL having a periphery including at least two, radially spaced, sharp edges defined by the posterior edge and peripheral walls which extend substantially parallel to the optical axis of the IOL and an interceding peripheral wall which extends substantially perpendicular to the optical axis. This configuration of the periphery of the IOL optic is a significant improvement over the single square edge optic designs in that it provides improved barriers against LEC migration. In an alternate embodiment, the inner-most edge which is defined in part by the posterior surface is sharp while the second, outer edge is rounded about at least a portion of the circumference thereof. The optic periphery design is also relatively easy to manufacture compared with other, more complicated IOL periphery designs which have been proposed in the prior art for inhibiting LEC migration. See, for example, the following patents and publications which show various IOL optic periphery designs:
a is a plan view of an IOL made in accordance with the present invention;
b is a cross-sectional view of the inventive IOL as taken generally along the line 4b-4b of
Referring now to the drawing, there is seen in
In an eye where the natural crystalline lens has been damaged (e.g., clouded by cataracts), the natural lens is no longer able to properly focus and direct incoming light to the retina and images become blurred. A well known surgical technique to remedy this situation involves removal of the damaged crystalline lens which may be replaced with an artificial lens known as an intraocular lens or IOL such as prior art IOL 24 seen in
Thus, in the “in-the-bag” technique of IOL surgery, the IOL is placed inside the capsule 16 which is located behind the iris 30 in the posterior chamber 14 of the eye. An IOL includes a central optic portion 24a which simulates the extracted natural lens by directing and focusing light upon the retina, and further includes a means for securing the optic in proper position within the capsular bag. A common IOL structure for securing the optic is called a haptic which is a resilient structure extending radially outwardly from the periphery of the optic. In a particularly common IOL design, two haptics 24b, 24c extend from opposite sides of the optic and curve to provide a biasing force against the inside of the capsule which secures the optic in the proper position within the capsule (see
As stated in the Background section hereof, an undesirable post-surgical condition known as posterior capsule opacification or PCO may occur which results in an implanted IOL becoming clouded and thus no longer able to properly direct and focus light therethrough. The main cause for this condition is the mitosis and migration of lens epithelial cells (LECs) across the posterior surface of the capsule behind the IOL optic. As seen in
Referring now to
Referring still to
Referring still to
It is noted that the degree to which the IOL indents into the posterior capsule may vary among patients. In some patients, the IOL may indent such that only first sharp edge E1 is engaging the posterior capsule in which case a single discontinuous bend B1 would be provided in the capsule wall to inhibit LEC migration. In this situation, second sharp edge E2 still provides a discontinuous geometry which acts to discourage LECs which may have attached to the IOL from migrating toward and onto the anterior surface 34a of the IOL optic. In other patients, the IOL may indent further into the posterior capsule in which case both first sharp edge E1 and second sharp edge E2 are engaging the posterior capsule (
As mentioned above, the primary source of germinating LECs is at the equator 16b of the capsular bag which is located radially outwardly of the optic periphery (
It is furthermore noted that the multiple sharp edge configuration of the inventive IOL provides a more complex frill formation in the capsule than the single sharp edge IOL designs of the prior art. In this regard, see the Nishi article cited herein (JCRS January 1995) which explains how it is the complex frill formation at the capsular bend which is believed to inhibit LEC migration.
A presently preferred method of forming the multiple sharp edge configuration in the IOL optic 34 comprises a milling operation where the IOL optic is mounted to a fixture and a mill is used to cut into the posterior optic surface at the perimeter thereof. The depth of the mill cut, as measured from the edge of posterior surface 34b to surface wall P2, is preferably about 0.01-1.5 mm, more preferably about 0.05-1.0 mm, and most preferably is about 0.08 mm. The width of the mill cut, as measured from wall P1 to wall P3, is preferably at least about 0.03 mm. Other methods which may be employed to form the peripheral edge geometry include lathing and molding, for example. It is also preferred that IOL 32 undergo tumble polishing prior to forming the edge geometry so as to ensure the edges E1, E2, E3, etc., retain their sharpness.
It is thus seen that the sharp edges are formed in a radially spaced configuration which gives a “stepped” configuration to the IOL optic periphery. It will be appreciated that any number of sharp edges may be provided in the stepped edge configuration described herein. Moreover, the peripheral wall surfaces P1, P3, P5 extend along spaced, parallel planes which extend substantially parallel to the optical axis OA of the IOL optic (see
This is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. Ser. No.10/005,864 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,558,419 filed Nov. 8, 2001.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4480340 | Sheppard | Nov 1984 | A |
4536895 | Bittner | Aug 1985 | A |
4591358 | Kelman | May 1986 | A |
4673406 | Schlegel | Jun 1987 | A |
4681586 | Woods | Jul 1987 | A |
4738680 | Herman | Apr 1988 | A |
4790845 | Grendahl | Dec 1988 | A |
5002569 | Lindstrom | Mar 1991 | A |
5171320 | Nishi | Dec 1992 | A |
5445636 | Bretton | Aug 1995 | A |
5445637 | Bretton | Aug 1995 | A |
5549670 | Young et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5620013 | Bretton | Apr 1997 | A |
5693093 | Woffinden | Dec 1997 | A |
5885279 | Bretton | Mar 1999 | A |
6015435 | Valunin et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6089234 | Bretton | Jul 2000 | A |
6096077 | Callahan et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6106554 | Bretton | Aug 2000 | A |
6138680 | Bretton | Oct 2000 | A |
6162248 | Neuhann | Dec 2000 | A |
6162249 | Deacon | Dec 2000 | A |
6258123 | Young et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6264692 | Woffinden | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6468306 | Paul et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6558419 | Pham et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6884262 | Brady et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6926744 | Bos et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
20020103537 | Willis et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030055498 | Paul et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030060879 | Paul et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030114926 | Paul et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120342 | Green | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030144733 | Brady et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030171807 | Pham et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040002757 | Lai et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024454 | Toop | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040059414 | Green | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20050107874 | Assia | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125055 | Deacon et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125056 | Deacon et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1273275 | Jan 2003 | EP |
WO 9635397 | Nov 1996 | WO |
WO 9962435 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 0066040 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 0103610 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0137762 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 0137762 | May 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030171807 A1 | Sep 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10005864 | Nov 2001 | US |
Child | 10386839 | US |