3.9 Article

Ultraviolet radiation at Mediterranean latitudes and protection efficacy of intraocular lenses

Journal

JOURNAL FRANCAIS D OPHTALMOLOGIE
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 23-28

Publisher

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfo.2012.03.018

Keywords

Ultraviolet radiation; Intraocular lens; UV filters; Ocular radiation exposure

Categories

Funding

  1. Catedra Alcon-Universitat de Valencia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. - After determining the mean intensity of ultraviolet radiation to which the human eye is exposed at Mediterranean latitudes, this data is used to evaluate the efficacy of the ultraviolet filters incorporated into various intraocular lenses. Methods. - Ultraviolet radiation measured at Mediterranean latitudes was used as a reference for the theoretical calculation of the amount of radiation to which the human eye is exposed. The spectral transmission curve from 290 to 380nm was measured for 10 IOLs using a UV/VIS Perkins-Elmer Lambda 800 spectrometer. Results. - At Mediterranean latitudes, at sea level, with a mean annual solar irradiation of 50 j/cm(2), the human eye receives a quantity of UVA and UVB that is lower than the threshold toxic dose for the rabbit crystalline lens (93 j/cm(2) for UVA and 6.45 j/cm(2) for UVB). However, at higher altitudes and with albedo approaching 0.9 (fresh snow), the amount of radiation increases, with duration of exposure potentially playing a significant role. The UV filters incorporated into the IOLs studied are, in general, protective against such levels of radiation. Conclusion. - At Mediterranean latitudes, at sea level, the amount of UV radiation to which our eyes are exposed is insufficient to damage the crystalline lens; however, at higher altitudes, the risk of such damage exists. UV filters incorporated into intraocular lenses are generally effective, since they filter all radiation with wavelengths under 380 nm. (C) 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available