rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:734-739 doi:10.1136/bjo.2003.031187
  • World view

A comparison of anterior and posterior chamber lenses after cataract extraction in rural Africa: a within patient randomised trial

  1. K M Waddell1,
  2. B C Reeves2,
  3. G J Johnson3,*
  1. 1Ruharo Eye Hospital, Mbarara, PO Box 4008, Kampala, Uganda
  2. 2Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  3. 3International Centre for Eye Health, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College of London, Bath Street, London ECIV 9EL, UK
  1. Correspondence to: Dr Barnaby Reeves Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK; barney.reeveslshtm.ac.uk
  • Accepted 3 December 2003

Abstract

Background: Extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with a posterior chamber intraocular lens (PC IOL) is the preferred method of cataract surgery in developed countries. However, intracapsular cataract extraction (ICCE) with an anterior chamber lens (AC IOL) may be appropriate in rural Africa. A randomised controlled trial was carried out to compare these surgical strategies.

Methods: Participants over 50 years requiring bilateral cataract surgery were recruited from outreach clinics in rural north and east Uganda. One eye was randomly allocated to AC IOL or PC IOL, the other eye being allocated to the second strategy. The main outcome measure was WHO distance visual acuity (VA) category after a minimum of 1 year. Secondary outcomes were numbers and causes of complications and refractive corrections.

Results: Of the 110 participants recruited, 98 (89%) were assessed at least 1 year after the operation (median follow up 17.5 months). Nine eyes randomised to PC IOL were converted to AC IOL; one eye randomised to AC IOL inadvertently received PC IOL. There was no difference in VA between 95 pairs of eyes for which data for both eyes were available (uncorrected VA, p = 0.26; corrected VA, p = 0.59). 80 (82%, 95% CI 73 to 89) and 82 (84%, 95% CI 75 to 90) eyes randomised to AC IOL and PC IOL respectively had corrected VA of 6/18 or better. 16 (16%, 95% CI 10 to 25) and eight (8%, 95% CI 4 to 15) eyes respectively had secondary procedures or other complications.

Conclusions: Where both strategies are available, ECCE with PC IOL should be first choice because of fewer complications. Where ECCE with PC IOL is not immediately feasible, ICCE with AC IOL is an acceptable interim technique.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Current affiliation: Clinical Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

  • Series editors: W V Good and S Ruit

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.