Inflammation after implantation of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, or silicone intraocular lenses in eyes with cataract and uveitis: comparison to a control group.

PURPOSE

To compare the course of inflammation after small-incision cataract surgery with implantation of 1 of 3 types of foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitis.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

METHODS

Seventy-four eyes with uveitis and cataract and 68 control eyes with cataract were prospectively selected to receive a foldable hydrophilic acrylic (Hydroview, Bausch & Lomb), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, Pharmacia) IOL. All surgery was performed by the same surgeon using a standardized protocol: clear corneal incision, capsulorhexis, phacoemulsification, and in-the-bag IOL implantation. Preoperative and postoperative inflammation was evaluated by measuring aqueous flare preoperatively and 1, 3, 7, 28, 90, and 180 days after surgery using the Kowa FC-1000 laser flare-cell meter. All uveitic eyes were in remission for at least 3 months before surgery.

RESULTS

In the uveitic eyes, there was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative course of flare and cell among the 3 IOL groups. Six months after surgery in uveitic eyes, flare values reached preoperative levels and the cell count was lower than preoperatively in all 3 IOL groups. Relative flare values were higher in the eyes with uveitis and a CeeOn 911 IOL; however, the difference between this group and the 2 acrylic IOL groups was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in inflammation after implantation of foldable IOLs in uveitic eyes. Although absolute flare values and cell counts in eyes with uveitis were higher than in control eyes, primarily because of a damaged blood-aqueous barrier (BAB), BAB recovery was similar between the 2 groups. The changes in the BAB indicate that foldable IOL implantation is safe in uveitic eyes.