BACKGROUND: To compare a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic acrylic single-piece intraocular lens (IOL) in uveitis patients with respect to biocompatibility and visual outcome. METHODS: Prospective, randomized study in patients with noninfectious uveitis after phacoemulsification and implantation of either ahydrophobic AcrySof (group 1, n = 30) or ahydrophilic Akreos adapt (group 2, n = 30), sharp-edged acrylic IOL. The primary outcome was uveal biocompatibility, detected by giant-cell deposition, anterior chamber cell count and laserflare photometry over a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures were capsular biocompatibility, as detected by posterior capsule opacification (PCO), lens epithelial cell outgrowth and Nd:YAG capsulotomies, and visual outcome. RESULTS: The groups did not differ with respect to anatomic type of uveitis, immunosuppressive treatment, associated systemic disease, and intraoperative manipulation. The number of giant cells on the anterior IOL surface was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (p = 0.03). The number of anterior chamber cells, laser flare photometry levels, and uveitis reactivations after surgery did not differ between the groups. After 6 months, the number of patients with PCO development (p = 1.0) and Nd:YAG capsulotomies (p = 0.21), lens epithelial cell outgrowth, visual outcome and uveitis complications were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both of the acrylic IOLs used had good uveal and capsular biocompatibility, leading to significant improvement in BCVA in patients with noninfectious uveitis. No obvious differences were detected at 6 months with respect to uveal and capsular biocompatibility and visual outcome.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic acrylic single-piece intraocular lens (IOL) in uveitispatients with respect to biocompatibility and visual outcome. METHODS: Prospective, randomized study in patients with noninfectious uveitis after phacoemulsification and implantation of either a hydrophobic AcrySof (group 1, n = 30) or a hydrophilic Akreos adapt (group 2, n = 30), sharp-edged acrylic IOL. The primary outcome was uveal biocompatibility, detected by giant-cell deposition, anterior chamber cell count and laserflare photometry over a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures were capsular biocompatibility, as detected by posterior capsule opacification (PCO), lens epithelial cell outgrowth and Nd:YAG capsulotomies, and visual outcome. RESULTS: The groups did not differ with respect to anatomic type of uveitis, immunosuppressive treatment, associated systemic disease, and intraoperative manipulation. The number of giant cells on the anterior IOL surface was higher in group 1 than in group 2 (p = 0.03). The number of anterior chamber cells, laser flare photometry levels, and uveitis reactivations after surgery did not differ between the groups. After 6 months, the number of patients with PCO development (p = 1.0) and Nd:YAG capsulotomies (p = 0.21), lens epithelial cell outgrowth, visual outcome and uveitis complications were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both of the acrylic IOLs used had good uveal and capsular biocompatibility, leading to significant improvement in BCVA in patients with noninfectious uveitis. No obvious differences were detected at 6 months with respect to uveal and capsular biocompatibility and visual outcome.
Authors: M A Elgohary; P J McCluskey; H M A Towler; N Okhravi; R P Singh; R Obikpo; S S Lightman Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Narciss Okhravi; Ainsley Morris; Howe Sen Kok; Victor Menezo; Jonathan G F Dowler; Phillip G Hykin; Sue Lightman Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.351