Results of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses in uveitic eyes with cataract: comparison to a control group.

Purpose: To evaluate the uveal and capsular biocompatibility of hydrophilic acrylic, hydrophobic acrylic, and silicone intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with uveitis.

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

Methods: This prospective study comprised 72 eyes with uveitis and 68 control eyes having phacoemulsification and IOL implantation by 1 surgeon. Patients received 1 of the following IOLs: foldable hydrophilic acrylic (Hydroview, Bausch & Lomb), hydrophobic acrylic (AcrySof, Alcon), or silicone (CeeOn 911, Pharmacia). Postoperative evaluations were at 1, 3, and 7 days and 1, 3, and 6 months. Cell reaction was evaluated by specular microscopy of the anterior IOL surface and the anterior and posterior capsule reaction, by biomicroscopy.

Results: Small round cell deposition was observed on all IOLs in the immediate postoperative period, especially in eyes with uveitis. This reaction decreased 3 to 6 months after surgery. Although the CeeOn 911 had a higher mean grade of small cells, there was no statistical difference between the 3 IOL types after 6 months in the uveitis and control groups. Foreign-body giant cells (FBGCs) increased after 1 week to 1 month. The AcrySof IOLs had the highest number of FBGCs; after 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference between the AcrySof and Hydroview uveitis groups (P =.036) and the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 uveitis groups (P =.003) but there was no difference among the 3 IOL types in the control group. Lens epithelial cell outgrowth persisted on the Hydroview IOLs in control eyes and regressed on all 3 IOL types in uveitic eyes and on the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 IOLs in control eyes (P =.0001). Anterior capsule opacification (ACO) was more severe on all IOL types in uveitic eyes and on the CeeOn 911 IOL in control eyes. Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) was more severe in uveitic eyes. The Hydroview group had more severe PCO than the AcrySof and the CeeOn 911 groups in uveitis and control eyes. Six months postoperatively, the difference was significant (P =.0001). There was no significant difference between the AcrySof and CeeOn 911 IOLs.

Conclusions: Intraocular lens biocompatibility is inversely related to inflammation. Hydrophilic acrylic material had good uveal but worse capsular biocompatibility. Hydrophobic acrylic material had lower uveal but better capsular biocompatibility. Silicone showed a higher small cell count (mild) and more severe ACO but achieved PCO results comparable to FBGC results and better than those with the AcrySof lens 6 months after surgery. Despite the differences in IOL biocompatibility, all patients benefited from the surgery.