Comparison of peroperative subconjunctival injection of methylprednisolone and standard postoperative steroid drops after uneventful cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a single subconjunctival injection of methylprednisolone and a standard postoperative steroid regimen in terms of intraocular inflammation and intraocular pressure (IOP) after uncomplicated phacoemulsification surgery. METHODS: Two groups of 25 patients each were included in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients in the injection group were given a subconjunctival injection of 20 mg methylprednisolone and the topical group received the conventional postoperative care with steroid eye drops (dexamethasone 1 mg/ml). The patients were examined 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Slit-lamp evaluation of anterior chamber inflammation and IOP were performed. Changes in IOP of ≥2.4 mmHg were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: In the injection group, mean IOP decreased from 15.4 ± 2.2 mmHg (baseline) to 14.1 ± 3.2 mmHg at 1 week (p = 0.03). The topical group had a stable IOP at 1 week (16.3 ± 2.6 mmHg) compared to baseline (16.1 ± 2.7 mmHg; p = 0.74). At 1 month, mean IOP was 14.3 ± 2.6 mmHg (p = 0.03) in the injection group and 15.6 ± 2.3 mmHg (p = 0.2) in the topical group. The intragroup changes were neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant at any postoperative visit. Both groups had the highest values of intraocular inflammation at the 1-week postoperative visit, followed by a decline to barely traceable levels at 1 month. The difference was not clinically relevant at any postoperative visit. CONCLUSIONS: The subconjunctival injection of methylprednisolone appears to be as safe and effective as the conventional treatment, and it might therefore be considered for treatment of individuals with compliance issues.

Visual and optical performance of the Akreos Adapt Advanced Optics and Tecnis Z9000 intraocular lenses: Swedish multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To compare the subjective visual and objective optical performance of 2 aspherical intraocular lenses (IOLs), the Akreos Adapt Advanced Optics (AO) (Bausch & Lomb, Inc.) and the Tecnis Z9000 (Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.). SETTING: Four university hospitals in Sweden. METHODS: This study comprised 80 patients, 20 each from 4 university hospital centers in Sweden. All patients had bilateral clear corneal phacoemulsification with implantation of an Akreos Adapt AO IOL in 1 eye and Tecnis Z9000 IOL in the other eye according to a randomization protocol. Preoperatively, 90% contrast Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity was measured and the mesopic pupil sizes were determined. Ten to 12 weeks postoperatively, 12.5% and 90% contrast ETDRS visual acuities and photopic and mesopic Functional Acuity Contrast Test chart contrast sensitivities were determined. Wavefront analysis was performed with the Zywave II aberrometer (Bausch & Lomb, Inc.), and a questionnaire on the subjective quality of vision was completed by each patient. RESULTS: The Akreos AO IOL and Tecnis Z9000 IOL produced similar high- and low-contrast visual acuities as well as photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities. The Tecnis Z9000 IOL resulted in lower spherical aberrations of the eye (mean 0.05 +/- 0.13 microm versus 0.35 +/- 0.13 microm root mean square, 6.0 mm pupil) (P<.001); however, the Akreos AO IOL provided a larger depth of field (mean 1.22 diopter [D] +/- 0.48 [SD] versus 0.86 +/- 0.50 D, 6.0 mm pupil) (P<.001). Patient satisfaction was generally high, although 68.8% of the patients reported some type of visual disturbance postoperatively. Twenty-eight percent of patients reported better subjective visual quality in the Akreos AO eye and 14%, in the Tecnis Z9000 eye (P<.0001). Accordingly, 33% perceived more visual disturbances in the Tecnis Z9000 eye and 11%, in the Akreos AO eye (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum reduction of spherical aberration did not maximize subjective visual quality. The higher perceived quality of vision with the Akreos AO IOL could be because of differences in depth of field, IOL material, or IOL design.