Twenty-five rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) of either sex, aged 6 to 27 years and weighing 5.0 to 13.4 kg, were studied. The monkeys all had normal phakic eyes with no signs of ocular disease (other than age-related lenticular opacification), as assessed by slit lamp examination. Animals were evaluated for corneal clarity and anterior chamber and anterior vitreous inflammatory reaction before and after surgery.
Eight of the monkeys, aged 17 to 26 years and weighing between 7.2 and 9.5 kg, were designated solely for measurements used in the calculation of the normal velocity of the ciliary process (CP) and lens centripetal movements during accommodation and disaccommodation at supramaximum central stimulation.
The remaining 17 monkeys underwent surgical procedures. Baseline measurements of the normal accommodative response in the eyes of each animal were taken before the surgical procedures were performed. Three lens surgery procedures (described later) were used in the study: intracapsular lens extraction (ICLE), extracapsular lens extraction (ECLE), and anterior regional zonulolysis (ARZ).
From the 17 monkeys designated for surgery, 18 eyes underwent successful surgical procedures. These 18 eyes were divided into two groups, according to age, to allow comparisons of young (6–13 years) versus older (17–27 years) eyes
(Table 1) . The two age groups were then further subdivided into three groups, each comprising both young and older monkeys, according to which surgical procedure they underwent
(Table 1) . No surgical group had two eyes from the same monkey.
Ten monkeys (five young; five older) each provided one eye for surgical intervention (ICLE, n = 4; ECLE, n = 2; ARZ, n = 4). The opposite eye was iridectomized but was otherwise surgically untouched and served as a contralateral control eye for morphologic examination.
One additional young monkey also provided one eye for the ICLE procedure (ICLE, n = 1), with its opposite eye iridectomized but otherwise surgically untouched; however, this monkey was not euthanatized and was retained for another study. Therefore, this eye did not undergo morphologic examination. Another older monkey contributed one eye to the ICLE group and, in a subsequent surgery, contributed the opposite eye to the ECLE group. Surgery in this monkey’s second eye was allowed by the veterinary staff of our institution and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, since the surgery was performed at a separate time point from the first eye, and cognitive behavior was observed by laboratory personnel and veterinary staff, to ensure that the animal was functioning normally before and after surgery. If signs of visual or other distress had been observed, the animal would have been euthanatized. However, no overt signs of distress were noted in any animal. Both of these eyes underwent morphologic examination.
In each of the five remaining monkeys (three young; two older), surgical procedures were performed initially in one eye (ICLE, n = 3; ECLE, n = 2). However, the postsurgical clinical examination of these five eyes uncovered surgical or technical complications that likely would have affected the accommodative apparatus in ways not intended by the surgery protocols, which were designed to disrupt specific parts of the accommodative apparatus. These complications were ciliary body degeneration (n = 2, ICLE), severing of the posterior zonular attachments (n = 1, ICLE), and perforation of the posterior capsule, capsular fibrosis, and lens cell regrowth with pronounced presence of pearls and Soemmering’s ring (n = 2, ECLE). Therefore, the decision was made, before postsurgical imaging, not to include postsurgical imaging data for these five eyes in the study. Subsequently, in each of these five monkeys, the contralateral eye also underwent surgery (ICLE, n = 3; ECLE, n = 2). These eyes were free of postsurgical complications, based on clinical examination, and the postsurgical imaging of these eyes was completed according to protocol. Again, cognitive behavior was observed for overt signs of distress after surgery in the second eye. However, the animals’ function in their cage environment appeared normal. For the older animals, the loss in accommodative ability (through either ECLE or ICLE) was not really a change since most, if not all, of their ability to accommodate had already been lost. For the younger animals, this meant an adjustment to the presbyopic condition at an earlier age. These eyes (young and older), being aphakic after surgery, lost distance acuity as well. However, because the monkeys were housed in a room within the animal care facility, their visual space and need for far distance vision was limited accordingly, and thus any aftereffects on the monkeys of this surgically induced loss of distance vision were reduced. The second eye for surgery did not appear to adversely affect the monkey’s ability to function normally within the caged environment, as determined by daily observation by both laboratory and veterinary staff. The strategy of using the second eye in these monkeys, under the careful constraints indicated, avoided major intracranial surgery in additional monkeys. All the eyes included in the study underwent morphologic examination.
In summary, 26 eyes from 25 monkeys were used in the study: eight eyes were used solely to obtain measurements for calculating normal CP velocity and lens centripetal movements; 18 eyes from the remaining 17 monkeys underwent successful surgical procedures: ICLE (nine monkey eyes; five young, four older), ECLE (five monkey eyes; three young, two older), and ARZ (four monkey eyes; one young, three older).