Evaluation of giant-cell deposits on foldable intraocular lenses after combined cataract and glaucoma surgery

被引:19
作者
Samuelson, TW
Chu, YR
Kreiger, RA
机构
[1] Phillips Eye Inst, Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[3] Reg Hosp, Minneapolis, MN USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0886-3350(00)00308-4
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare the incidence of inflammatory giant-cell deposits (IGCDs) on various foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs) after combined cataract and glaucoma surgery. Setting: The Phillips Eye institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Methods: In this prospective randomized clinical trial, 128 patients were randomized to receive a single-piece, first-generation silicone lens (n = 36); a 3-piece acrylic lens (n = 40); or 3-piece, second-generation silicone lens (n = 52). Aii patients had combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy with mitomycin-C by 1 surgeon using a standardized technique. Dilated biomicroscopy was used to identify and quantitate IGCDs on the surface of the IOLs using a 6-point grading scale. Results: Inflammatory giant-cell deposits were identified on 21 of 128 IOLs, Lens design was the most significant risk factor for deposit formation (P = .004). Inflammatory giant-cell deposits were most common in the first-generation silicone plate lens group (33%), less common in the acrylic lens group (15%), and least common in the 3-piece, second-generation silicone group (5.8%). Density of the deposits was significantly greater on the plate lens than the acrylic or the 3-piece silicone lenses (P < .0001). Although IOL design was the most significant risk factor for IGCD formation, other significant risk factors included intraoperative pupil stretch (P = .02) and preoperative miotic use (P = .04). Conclusion: Inflammatory giant-cell deposit formation was significantly greater on first-generation silicone plate IOLs than on acrylic or second-generation silicone IOLs. The deposits were somewhat more common on acrylic IOLs than on second-generation silicone IOLs. However, this difference was not clinically or statistically significant. (C) 2000 ASCRS and ESCRS.
引用
收藏
页码:817 / 823
页数:7
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
AGRESTI A, 1996, INTRO CATEGORICAL DA, P39
[2]   REDUCED VISION SECONDARY TO PIGMENTED CELLULAR MEMBRANES ON SILICONE INTRAOCULAR LENSES [J].
CARLSON, DW ;
BARAD, JP ;
PARSONS, MR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1995, 120 (04) :462-470
[3]   Laser synechialysis to prevent membrane recurrence on silicone intraocular lenses [J].
Flynn, WJ ;
Carlson, DW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1996, 122 (03) :426-428
[4]   Biocompatibility of poly(methyl methacrylate), silicone, and AcrySof intraocular lenses: Randomized comparison of the cellular reaction on the anterior lens surface [J].
Hollick, EJ ;
Spalton, DJ ;
Ursell, PG ;
Pande, MV .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 1998, 24 (03) :361-366
[5]  
Hosmer D. W., 1989, APPL LOGISTIC REGRES, DOI DOI 10.1097/00019514-200604000-00003
[6]   Comparative study of silicone versus acrylic foldable lens implantation in primary glaucoma triple procedure [J].
Lemon, LC ;
Shin, DH ;
Song, MS ;
Lee, JH ;
Bendel, RE ;
Juzych, MS ;
Hughes, BA .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1997, 104 (10) :1708-1713
[7]   Two year clinical study of a soft acrylic intraocular lens [J].
Oshika, T ;
Suzuki, Y ;
Kizaki, H ;
Yaguchi, S .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 1996, 22 (01) :104-109
[8]   Postoperative cellular reaction on various intraocular lens materials [J].
Ravalico, G ;
Baccara, F ;
Lovisato, A ;
Tognetto, D .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1997, 104 (07) :1084-1091
[9]  
Samuelson T W, 1996, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, V7, P53, DOI 10.1097/00055735-199602000-00011
[10]  
Samuelson T W, 1997, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, V8, P39