Selection of intraocular lenses in patients with uveitis

Biocompatibility of Intraocular Lenses

The performance of an intraocular lens is determined by several factors such as the surgical technique, surgical complications, intraocular lens biomaterial and design, and host reaction to the lens. The factor indicating the biocompatibility of an intraocular lens is the behavior of inflammatory and lens epithelial cells. Hence, the biocompatibility of intraocular lens materials is assessed in terms of uveal biocompatibility, based on the inflammatory foreign-body reaction of the eye against the implant, and in terms of capsular biocompatibility, determined by the relationship of the intraocular lens with residual lens epithelial cells within the capsular bag. Insufficient biocompatibility of intraocular lens materials may result in different clinical entities such as anterior capsule opacification, posterior capsule opacification, and lens epithelial cell ongrowth. Intraocular lenses are increasingly implanted much earlier in life in cases such as refractive lens exchange or pediatric intraocular lens implantation after congenital cataract surgery, and these lenses are expected to exhibit maximum performance for many decades. The materials used in intraocular lens manufacture should, therefore, ensure long-term uveal and capsular biocompatibility. In this article, we review the currently available materials used in the manufacture of intraocular lenses, especially with regard to their uveal and capsular biocompatibility, and discuss efforts to improve the biocompatibility of intraocular lenses.

Surface Modification of Intraocular Lenses

Objective:

This paper aimed to review the current literature on the surface modification of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Data Sources:

All articles about surface modification of IOLs published up to 2015 were identified through a literature search on both PubMed and ScienceDirect.

Study Selection:

The articles on the surface modification of IOLs were included, but those on design modification and surface coating were excluded.

Results:

Technology of surface modification included plasma, ion beam, layer-by-layer self-assembly, ultraviolet radiation, and ozone. The main molecules introduced into IOLs surface were poly (ethylene glycol), polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine, TiO₂, heparin, F-heparin, titanium, titanium nitride, vinyl pyrrolidone, and inhibitors of cytokines. The surface modification either resulted in a more hydrophobic lens, a more hydrophilic lens, or a lens with a hydrophilic anterior and hydrophobic posterior surface. Advances in research regarding surface modification of IOLs had led to a better biocompatibility in both in vitro and animal experiments.

Conclusion:

The surface modification is an efficient, convenient, economic and promising method to improve the biocompatibility of IOLs.

Controversies in intraocular lens implantation in pediatric uveitis

Cataract is one of the most common and visually debilitating complications of pediatric uveitis. It develops as a consequence of chronic inflammation and steroid use and is seen most often in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated uveitis. Cataract extraction with intraocular lens (IOL) insertion has been carried out with a measure of success in non-uveitic pediatric eyes, but in cases of uveitis, multiple factors affect the final outcome. Chronic inflammation and its sequelae such as band keratopathy, posterior synechiae, and cyclitic membranes make surgical intervention more challenging and outcome less certain. Postoperative complications like increased inflammation, glaucoma, posterior capsular opacification, retrolental membranes, and hypotony may compromise the visual outcome. Early refractive correction is imperative in pediatric eyes to prevent amblyopia. The use of contact lenses and intraocular lenses in pediatric uveitic eyes were fraught with complications in the past. Surgical interventions such as vitreo-lensectomy followed by contact lens fitting and small incision cataract surgery followed by different types of intraocular lenses have been utilized, and many reports have been published, albeit in small patient groups. This review analyzes and discusses the existing literature on intraocular lens implantation in cases of pediatric uveitic cataract surgery.

Types of intraocular lenses for cataract surgery in eyes with uveitis

BACKGROUND

Cataract formation often occurs in people with uveitis. It is unclear which intraocular lens (IOL) type is optimal for use in cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the effects of different IOLs on visual acuity, other visual outcomes, and quality of life in people with uveitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 August 2013. We also performed forward and backward searching using the Science Citation Index and the reference lists of the included studies, respectively, in August 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, or poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) IOLs with or without heparin-surface modification (HSM), with each other, or with no treatment in adults with uveitis, for any indication, undergoing cataract surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors screened the search results and for included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted study investigators for additional information. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 216 participants (range of 2 to 140 participants with uveitic cataract per trial) and comparing up to four types of IOLs. The largest study was an international study with centers in Brazil, Egypt, Finland, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain, and the USA; two studies were conducted in Germany and one in Saudi Arabia. There was substantial heterogeneity with respect to the ages of participants and etiologies of uveitis within and across studies. The length of follow-up among the studies ranged from 1 to 24 months after cataract surgery. The studies were at low risk of selection bias, but two of the four studies did not employ masking and only one study included all randomized participants in the final analyses. The funding source was disclosed by investigators of the largest study (professional society) and not reported by the other three. Due to heterogeneity in lens types evaluated and outcomes reported among the trials, we did not combine data in a meta-analysis.In the largest study (140 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive one of four types of IOLs: hydrophobic acrylic, silicone, HSM PMMA, or unmodified PMMA. Proportions of participants with one or more Snellen lines of visual improvement were similar among the four treatment groups at one year' follow-up: 45 of 48 (94%) in the hydrophobic acrylic IOL group, 39 of 44 (89%) in the silicone IOL group, 18 of 22 (82%) in the HSM PMMA IOL group, and 22 of 26 (85%) in the unmodified PMMA IOL group. When comparing hydrophobic acrylic IOLs with silicone IOLs, the risk ratio (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.20). At one year' follow-up, fewer eyes randomized to hydrophobic acrylic IOLs developed posterior synechiae when compared with eyes receiving silicone IOLs (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79); the effects between these groups were less certain with respect to developing posterior capsule opacification (PCO) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.37), corneal edema (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.12), cystoid macular edema (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.84), or mild IOL decentration (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.22).Two intra-individual studies also compared HSM PMMA IOLs with unmodified PMMA IOLs at three or six months of follow-up. These studies, including a combined total of 16 participants with uveitis, were insufficiently powered to detect differences in outcomes among eyes of people with uveitis randomized to receive HSM PMMA IOLs when compared with fellow eyes receiving unmodified PMMA IOLs.In the fourth study (60 participants), the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOL. At three months, there were no statistical or clinical differences between hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOL types in the proportions of participants with two or more Snellen lines of visual improvement (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22). There were similar rates in the development of PCO between hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOLs at six months' follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). The effect of the lenses on posterior synechiae was uncertain at six months' follow-up (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the trials identified in this review, there is uncertainty as to which type of IOL provides the best visual and clinical outcomes in people with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery. The studies were small, not all lens materials were compared in all studies, and not all lens materials were available in all study sites. Evidence of a superior effect of hydrophobic acrylic lenses over silicone lenses, specifically for posterior synechiae outcomes comes from a single study at a high risk of performance and detection bias. However, due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity in outcome reporting, we found insufficient information to assess these and other types of IOL materials for cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

Postcataract surgical inflammation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and recent developments in the diagnosis and management of postcataract surgery inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with pre-existing uveitis, control of inflammation with topical and/or systemic therapy for 3 months preoperatively continues to be important in lessening the risk of postoperative inflammation and complications. During cataract surgery, intraocular lens selection in these patients is important. Recent literature suggests that modern intraocular lenses (IOLs), particularly hydrophilic or hydrophobic acrylic lenses, generally have good uveal biocompatibility in uveitic patients. The postoperative course can be complicated by inflammation and cystoid macular edema (CME), and in uveitic patients, intensive perioperative steroid treatment can lessen these complications. Recent studies show that in uveitic patients, the improvement in CME and inflammation after intravitreal triamcinolone is better than after orbital floor triamcinolone injection, but that a single intraoperative orbital floor injection of triamcinolone is as effective as a 4-week course of postoperative oral prednisolone. Although postoperative inflammation in uveitic patients may be due to recurrence of uveitis, one must recognize other important potential causes of postoperative inflammation and treat accordingly.

SUMMARY

Most patients with postcataract inflammation have good visual outcomes provided that the cause is recognized and that there is adequate perioperative planning in patients predisposed to inflammation.