Pålsson Sara, Schuborg Claes, Sterner Bertil, Andersson Grönlund Marita, Zetterberg Madeleine
Department of Clinical Neuroscience/Ophthalmology, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Mölndal, Sweden.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2025 Feb 4;19:373-383. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S493398. eCollection 2025.
To compare inflammatory response, visual acuity, and complications of two intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients with and without uveitis.
Tertiary referral centre at Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Mölndal, Sweden.
Prospective randomised controlled trial.
Patients with and without uveitis eligible for cataract surgery were randomised to receive a hydrophobic or a hydrophilic square-edged intraocular lens (IOL). Patients undergoing bilateral surgery received a hydrophobic IOL in one eye and a hydrophilic in the other. Visual acuity, flare, and central foveal thickness were used as outcome measures.
In total, 34 (61%) patients (52 eyes) with uveitis and 22 (39%) non-uveitic patients (38 eyes) were included in the study. Comparable corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was seen, regardless of IOL material. Flare, six months postoperatively, for those undergoing bilateral surgery, showed no significant difference between eyes receiving a hydrophilic IOL or a hydrophobic IOL; mean difference was -3.2 (SD ± 20.7) ph/ms between eyes with uveitis (p = 0.53) and -0.6 SD ± 7.5 ph/ms between eyes without uveitis (p = 0.77). No significant difference in cystoid macular edema (CME) was seen for uveitic patients receiving a hydrophobic IOL (n = 2; 8.0%) and those receiving a hydrophilic IOL (n = 6; 22.2%; p = 0.25).
No significant differences in postoperative inflammatory reaction or rate of CME were seen regardless of using a hydrophobic or a hydrophilic IOL. In general, an improvement in CDVA was seen after cataract surgery with both types of IOLs. Thus, the present study did not support either of the IOL materials as advantageous in patients with uveitis.
比较葡萄膜炎患者和非葡萄膜炎患者植入两种人工晶状体（IOL）后的炎症反应、视力及并发症情况。
瑞典萨尔格伦斯卡大学医院/默恩达尔的三级转诊中心。
前瞻性随机对照试验。
符合白内障手术条件的葡萄膜炎患者和非葡萄膜炎患者被随机分配接受疏水或亲水方形边缘人工晶状体（IOL）。接受双侧手术的患者，一只眼植入疏水IOL，另一只眼植入亲水IOL。将视力、闪光和中央凹厚度作为观察指标。
本研究共纳入34例（61%）葡萄膜炎患者（52只眼）和22例（39%）非葡萄膜炎患者（38只眼）。无论IOL材料如何，矫正远视力（CDVA）相当。对于接受双侧手术的患者，术后6个月，接受亲水IOL或疏水IOL的眼之间闪光无显著差异；葡萄膜炎患者的眼之间平均差异为-3.2（标准差±20.7）ph/ms（p = 0.53），非葡萄膜炎患者的眼之间平均差异为-0.6标准差±7.5 ph/ms（p = 0.77）。接受疏水IOL的葡萄膜炎患者（n = 2；8.0%）和接受亲水IOL的患者（n = 6；22.2%；p = 0.25）之间黄斑囊样水肿（CME）无显著差异。
无论使用疏水IOL还是亲水IOL，术后炎症反应或CME发生率均无显著差异。总体而言，两种类型的IOL白内障手术后CDVA均有改善。因此，本研究不支持任何一种IOL材料对葡萄膜炎患者具有优势。
