Intracapsular lens extraction (ICLE: removal of the lens nucleus, cortex, and capsule) and extracapsular lens extraction (ECLE: ∼4 mm anterior capsulorrhexis, removal of the lens nucleus and cortex) surgery procedures were performed as described in the companion article.
17 The surgery procedures were assigned to the 15 eyes of the 14 study monkeys as follows
Seven monkeys (three young; four older) each provided one eye for surgical intervention (ICLE, n = 5; ECLE, n = 2); the opposite eye was iridectomized but otherwise was surgically untouched and served as a contralateral control eye for morphologic examination. Two of these monkeys (older ICLE, n = 1; older ECLE, n = 1) did not undergo UBM imaging, but the eyes did undergo measurements of the ciliary muscle during morphologic examination.
One additional young monkey also received unilateral ICLE (Wieger’s ligament remained intact) but was not euthanatized and was retained for another study.
Another older monkey contributed one eye to the ICLE group and 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 procedure in 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.
In the five other monkeys (three young; two older), surgical procedures were performed in one eye (ICLE, n = 3; ECLE, n = 2). However, the postsurgical clinical examination of these five eyes uncovered surgical or technical complications: 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). These complications probably would have affected the accommodative apparatus in ways not intended by the surgery, which was designed to disrupt a specific part of the accommodative apparatus. 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 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) is not really a change since most, if not all, of their ability to accommodate has already been lost. For the younger animals, this meant an adjustment to the presbyopic condition at an earlier age. In either situation (young or older animals), the visual space is restricted when looking around the room. The strategy of using the second eye in these monkeys under the careful constraints indicated was used to avoid major intracranial surgery in additional monkeys. All the eyes underwent morphologic examination with the exception of the monkey that was retained for further study and not euthanatized.
In total, 15 eyes of 14 monkeys were included: for ICLE, 10 monkey eyes; 5 young, 5 older; and for ECLE, 5 monkey eyes; 2 young, 3 older.