May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Prophylactic Treatment of Posterior Capsular Opacification (PCO) – A Comparison Between PerfectCapsule and PCO–Guard
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.B. Holmen
    PhacoTreat AB, Uppsala, Sweden
  • P. Soderberg
    Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  • B. Lundgren
    Visionar Biomedical AB, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.B. Holmen, PhacoTreat AB I, E, P; P. Soderberg, PhacoTreat AB C; B. Lundgren, PhacoTreat AB C.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 2858. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.B. Holmen, P. Soderberg, B. Lundgren; Prophylactic Treatment of Posterior Capsular Opacification (PCO) – A Comparison Between PerfectCapsule and PCO–Guard . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2858.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements


Minimization of PCO is necessary to realize injectable accommodative gel lenses in clinical praxis. It has been shown that lens epithelial cells can be destroyed chemically. But it is difficult to safely administer toxic drugs locally into the capsular bag in vivo. In the present study, two systems for capsular bag sealing, PerfectCapsule and PCO–Guard, were compared in vivo in rabbits with regard to efficacy and safety.



Phacoemulsification was performed on both eyes in eight rabbits. PerfectCapsule (Milvella, Australia) was used in one eye of each rabbit, and PCO–Guard (PhacoTreat AB, Sweden) in the other eye. The use of PerfectCapsule included continuous irrigation of 20 ml deionized water during 2 minutes, which has been shown to be clinically efficient in humans. The use of PCO–Guard included administration of 0.02 ml epitheliotoxic agent solution (PT–546) into a sealed gas–expanded capsule. The agent was retained in the capsule for 10 minutes before removal by I/A. The eyes were evaluated with pachymetry and slit lamp examination two and seven weeks after surgery to check for toxicity. Then, the rabbits were sacrificed and the wet weights of the dissected lens capsules were measured. Statistical analyses were made by Wilcoxon signed rank test (P < 0.05).



We found an average difference of capsular wet weight between PerfectCapsule (115 mg) and PCO–Guard (19 mg) (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the methods in corneal thickness or gross morphology as revealed by slit lamp evaluation.



PCO–Guard in combination with PT–546 is more efficient in PCO prevention than PerfectCapsule in combination with deionized water. There is no difference in toxicity between the two methods.



Keywords: posterior capsular opacification (PCO) • drug toxicity/drug effects • pharmacology 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.