ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2009
Impact of fibronectin on surface properties of intraocular lenses.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of intraocular lens removal combined with vitrectomy for acute endophthalmitis in pseudophakic eyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Comparison of Adhesion of Immortalized Human Iris-Derived Cells and Fibronectin on Phakic Intraocular Lenses Made of Different Polymer Base Materials.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- F-heparin modified intraocular lenses in Rhesus monkeys.International journal of ophthalmology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePhysical properties of intraocular lens (IOL) surfaces determine biocompatibility. IOL hydrophobicity of commercially available IOLs with and without fibronectin (FN) coating can be determined by surface contact angle (SCA) measurements. SCA data of IOLs may allow for a rational selection of an IOL type as a function of underlying eye disease.
settingUniversity Hospital of Saarland, Homburg (Saar), Germany
methodsThirteen IOL types were tested. IOLs were made of poly(methyl methacrylate)(PMMA), acrylate, or silicone. Select IOLs were surface modified by the manufacturer with heparin or a polysaccharide coating. SCA values of IOLs, either uncoated or precoated with FN, were determined using the sessile water drop method.
resultsSCA values ranged from 61.3 to 116.1 degrees for unmodified IOLs, with PMMA IOLs being more hydrophilic (median SCA, 74.1 degrees ), silicone IOLs more hydrophobic (median SCA, 113.3 degrees ), and acrylate IOLs intermediate (median SCA, 86.6 degrees ). Upon FN coating, all genuine acrylate lenses became significantly more hydrophilic while this effect was either nonsignificant or opposite on some PMMA and silicon IOLs. Heparin or polysaccharide surface modification resulted in significantly reduced SCA values. On acrylate IOLs, SCA values did not correlate with the aqueous content of the material.
conclusionsThis study associates IOL materials, surface modifications, and the role of FN preadsorption with SCA values reflecting surface hydrophobicity versus hydrophilicity. It provides a rationale for specific IOL selection as a function of the clinical setting, and a basis for IOL development using tailored surface physicochemistry to enhance biocompatibility and to reduce susceptibility to implant infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.