Intraocular lens optic edge design for the prevention of posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery.
Sophie Maedel,Jennifer R Evans,Annette Harrer-Seely,Oliver Findl
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012516.pub2
IF: 8.4
2021-08-18
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) is a clouding of the posterior part of the lens capsule, a skin‐like transparent structure, which surrounds the crystalline lens in the human eye. PCO is the most common postoperative complication following modern cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). The main symptoms of PCO are a decrease in visual acuity, 'cloudy', blurred vision and reduced contrast sensitivity. PCO is treated with a neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser to create a small opening in the opaque capsule and regain a clear central visual axis. This capsulotomy might cause further ocular complications, such as raised intraocular pressure or swelling of the central retina (macular oedema). This procedure is also a significant financial burden for health care systems worldwide. In recent decades, there have been advances in the selection of IOL materials and optimisation of IOL designs to help prevent PCO formation after cataract surgery. These include changes to the side structures holding the lens in the centre of the lens capsule bag, called IOL haptics, and IOL optic edge designs. To compare the effects of different IOL optic edge designs on PCO after cataract surgery. We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS), the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 17 November 2020. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different types of IOL optic edge design. Our prespecified primary outcome was the proportion of eyes with Nd:YAG capsulotomy one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included PCO score, best‐corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and quality of life score at one year. Due to availability of important long‐term data, we also presented data at longer‐term follow‐up which is a post hoc change to our protocol. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 10 studies (1065 people, 1834 eyes) that compared sharp‐ and round‐edged IOLs. Eight of these studies were within‐person studies whereby one eye received a sharp‐edged IOL and the fellow eye a round‐edged IOL. The IOL materials were acrylic (2 studies), silicone (4 studies), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, 3 studies) and different materials (1 study). The studies were conducted in Austria, Germany, India, Japan, Sweden and the UK. Five studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias in all domains. There were few cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy at one year (primary outcome): 1/371 in sharp‐edged and 4/371 in round‐edged groups. The effect estimate was in favour of sharp‐edged IOLs but the confidence intervals were very wide and compatible with higher or lower chance of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp‐edged compared with round‐edged lenses (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.74; I 2 = 0%; 6 studies, 742 eyes). This corresponds to seven fewer cases of Nd:YAG capsulotomy per 1000 sharp‐edged IOLs inserted compared with round‐edged IOLs (95% CI 9 fewer to 7 more). We judged this as low‐certainty evidence, downgrading for imprecision and risk of bias. A similar reduced risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in sharp‐edge compared with round‐edge IOLs was seen at two, three and five years but as the number of Nd:YAG capsulotomy events increased with longer follow‐up this effect was more precisely measured at longer follow‐up: two years, risk ratio (RR) 0.35 (0.16 to 0.80); 703 eyes (6 studies); 89 fewer cases per 1000; three years, RR 0.21 (0.11 to 0.41); 538 eyes (6 studies); 170 fewer cases per 1000; five years, RR 0.21 (0.10 to 0.45); 306 eyes (4 studies); 331 fewer cases per 1000. Data at 9 years and 12 years were only available from one study. All studies reported a PCO score. Four studies reported the AQUA (Automated Quantification of After‐Cataract) score, four studies reported the EPCO (Evaluation of PCO) score and two studies reported another method of quantifying PCO. It was not possible to pool these data due to the way they were reported, but all studies consistently reported a statistically significant lower average PCO score (of the order of 0.5 to 3 units) with sharp‐edged IOLs compared with round‐edged IOLs. We judged this to be moderate‐certainty evidence downgrading for risk of bias. The logMAR visual acuity score was lower (better) in eyes that received a sharp‐edged IOL but the difference was small and likely to be clinically unimportant at one year (mean difference (MD) ‐0.06 logMAR, 95% CI ‐0.12 to 0; 2 studies, 153 eyes; low‐certainty evidence). Similar effects were seen at longer follow‐up periods but non‐statistically significant data were less fully reported: two years MD ‐0.01 logMAR (‐0.05 to 0.02); 2 st -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal