PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term uveal and capsular biocompatibility of 5 intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitic cataract. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: Patients with uveitis of various origin were consecutively recruited for cataract surgery (1998-2006) and received 1 of 3 hydrophilic acrylic IOLs (Hydroview, AcrySof MA60BM, or Injectacryl F3000), a silicone IOL (CeeOn 911), or a hydrophilic acrylic IOL with heparin surface modification (BioVue(3)). A 7-year follow-up was performed in the Hydroview, AcrySof, and CeeOn groups. Visual acuity, anterior chamber flare measurements, specular microscopy, biomicroscopy, and fundoscopy were performed postoperatively at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTS: The study enrolled 136 eyes of 115 patients. There were no significant differences in anterior chamber flare results between the 5 groups. The Hydroview group had the highest grade and the CeeOn IOL and AcrySof groups had the lowest grade of posterior capsule opacification. The BioVue(3) and Injectacryl IOLs had good uveal biocompatibility. Patients in all groups had better visual acuity postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients with uveitis benefited from cataract surgery. The long-term results indicate that all sharp-edged hydrophilic and hydrophobic IOLs performed well in eyes with uveitis. Higher uveal biocompatibility was achieved with the modern hydrophilic acrylic IOLs than with the hydrophobic acrylic IOL. Modern hydrophilic acrylic IOLs seem to be a good option in these cases. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term uveal and capsular biocompatibility of 5 intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitic cataract. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS:Patients with uveitis of various origin were consecutively recruited for cataract surgery (1998-2006) and received 1 of 3 hydrophilic acrylic IOLs (Hydroview, AcrySof MA60BM, or Injectacryl F3000), a silicone IOL (CeeOn 911), or a hydrophilic acrylic IOL with heparin surface modification (BioVue(3)). A 7-year follow-up was performed in the Hydroview, AcrySof, and CeeOn groups. Visual acuity, anterior chamber flare measurements, specular microscopy, biomicroscopy, and fundoscopy were performed postoperatively at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTS: The study enrolled 136 eyes of 115 patients. There were no significant differences in anterior chamber flare results between the 5 groups. The Hydroview group had the highest grade and the CeeOn IOL and AcrySof groups had the lowest grade of posterior capsule opacification. The BioVue(3) and Injectacryl IOLs had good uveal biocompatibility. Patients in all groups had better visual acuity postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients with uveitis benefited from cataract surgery. The long-term results indicate that all sharp-edged hydrophilic and hydrophobic IOLs performed well in eyes with uveitis. Higher uveal biocompatibility was achieved with the modern hydrophilic acrylic IOLs than with the hydrophobic acrylic IOL. Modern hydrophilic acrylic IOLs seem to be a good option in these cases. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Timur M Yildirim; Ramin Khoramnia; Sonja K Schickhardt; Donald J Munro; Patrick R Merz; Hyeck-Soo Son; Ingo Lieberwirth; Gerd U Auffarth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep Date: 2020-06-24