PURPOSE: To compare the capsular and uveal reaction after implantation of a plate-haptic silicone intraocular lens (IOL) (C11UB, Chiron) and a hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof MA60, Alcon) IOL in diabetic patients. SETTING: Moorfields Eye Hospital and St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. METHODS:Thirty-five diabetic patients were recruited consecutively and randomly assigned to have implantation of either of the 2 IOLs. The percentage area of posterior capsule opacification (PCO), anterior capsule contraction (ACC), and postoperative inflammatory indices (flare and cells) were assessed objectively at 2 to 3 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Between-group and within-group analyses were conducted using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney test and Friedmann test, respectively. RESULTS: Between-group analysis showed the percentage area of PCO was significantly greater in patients with plate-haptic silicone IOLs at 6 and 12 months (P = .002). At 6 months, ACC was significantly greater in the plate-haptic group (P = .04), but the difference was not significant at 12 months. There was higher flare in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group than in the plate-haptic silicone IOL group at 2 to 3 weeks (P = .08). Within-group analysis showed that over the follow-up period, the plate-haptic silicone group, but not the hydrophobic acrylic group, had a progressive increase in PCO (P = .003). In the hydrophobic acrylic group, but not the plate-haptic silicone group, there was a significant reduction in the mean anterior chamber flare value (P = .01). There was no significant difference in visual acuity or contrast sensitivity at any postoperative visit. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients, hydrophobic acrylic IOLs can lead to an increased flare in the early postoperative period but they seem to be more favorable than plate-haptic silicone IOLs because the latter lead to more PCO.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the capsular and uveal reaction after implantation of a plate-haptic silicone intraocular lens (IOL) (C11UB, Chiron) and a hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof MA60, Alcon) IOL in diabeticpatients. SETTING: Moorfields Eye Hospital and St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: Thirty-five diabeticpatients were recruited consecutively and randomly assigned to have implantation of either of the 2 IOLs. The percentage area of posterior capsule opacification (PCO), anterior capsule contraction (ACC), and postoperative inflammatory indices (flare and cells) were assessed objectively at 2 to 3 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Between-group and within-group analyses were conducted using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney test and Friedmann test, respectively. RESULTS: Between-group analysis showed the percentage area of PCO was significantly greater in patients with plate-haptic silicone IOLs at 6 and 12 months (P = .002). At 6 months, ACC was significantly greater in the plate-haptic group (P = .04), but the difference was not significant at 12 months. There was higher flare in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group than in the plate-haptic silicone IOL group at 2 to 3 weeks (P = .08). Within-group analysis showed that over the follow-up period, the plate-haptic silicone group, but not the hydrophobic acrylic group, had a progressive increase in PCO (P = .003). In the hydrophobic acrylic group, but not the plate-haptic silicone group, there was a significant reduction in the mean anterior chamber flare value (P = .01). There was no significant difference in visual acuity or contrast sensitivity at any postoperative visit. CONCLUSION: In diabeticpatients, hydrophobic acrylic IOLs can lead to an increased flare in the early postoperative period but they seem to be more favorable than plate-haptic silicone IOLs because the latter lead to more PCO.