Article Text
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the long-term visual acuity (VA) outcome of cataract surgery in inflammatory eye disease.
Setting Tertiary care academic centres.
Design Multicentre retrospective cohort study.
Methods A total of 1741 patients with non-infectious inflammatory eye disease (2382 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery while under tertiary uveitis management were included. Standardised chart review was used to gather clinical data. Multivariable logistic regression models with adjustment for intereye correlations were performed to evaluate the prognostic factors for VA outcomes. Main outcome measure was VA after cataract surgery.
Results Uveitic eyes independent of anatomical location showed improved VA from baseline (mean 20/200) to within 3 months (mean 20/63) of cataract surgery and maintained through at least 5 years of follow-up (mean 20/63). Eyes that achieved 20/40 or better VA at 1 year were more likely to have scleritis (OR=1.34, p<0.0001) or anterior uveitis (OR=2.2, p<0.0001), VA 20/50 to 20/80 (OR 4.76 as compared with worse than 20/200, p<0.0001) preoperatively, inactive uveitis (OR=1.49, p=0.03), have undergone phacoemulsification (OR=1.45 as compared with extracapsular cataract extraction, p=0.04) or have had intraocular lens placement (OR=2.13, p=0.01). Adults had better VA immediately after surgery, with only 39% (57/146) paediatric eyes at 20/40 or better at 1 year.
Conclusions Our results suggest that adult and paediatric eyes with uveitis typically have improved VA following cataract surgery and remain stable thereafter for at least 5 years.
- Epidemiology
- Inflammation
- Lens and zonules
- Treatment Surgery
- Vision
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The data are funded by NIH and therefore available upon request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. The data are funded by NIH and therefore available upon request.
Footnotes
Twitter @GangaputraSapna
Deceased Deceased
Contributors All authors contributed to the manuscript, either by caring for the patients whose data were included, collection of data, or abstraction and analysis of results. All authors critically reviewed the study proposal, analysis results and manuscript draft and provided feedback.
Funding National Eye Institute/National Institutes of Health grant 1R21 EY032592-01 (SG), grant 1R01 EY014943 (JHK) and Research to Prevent Blindness (New York, NY).
Disclaimer The funding organisations had no role in the design or conduct of this research. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any of the funding agencies.
Competing interests JTR: AbbVie (consultant); Gilead (consultant); Janssen (consultant); Eyevensys (consultant); UpToDate (author/royalties); Pfizer (financial support); Novartis (consultant); Roche (consultant); Alcon Research Institute (financial support); Horizon (financial support and consultant); Revolo (consultant); Neoleukin (consultant); Affibody (consultant); Celgene-Bristol Myers (Data Monitoring Committee); Eli Lilly (Clinical Endpoints Committee). GL-C: AbbVie (consultant, lecture fees); Allergan (grant support); Mallinckrodt (consultant, grant support); Sanofi (grant support, lecture fees). ES: Eyevensys (consultant); Santen (consultant); EyeGate (consultant, financial support); AbbVie (consultant, financial support); Clearside (consultant, financial support); EyePoint (consultant, financial support). SGa: Merit CRO (consultant); NEI (grant support); RPB (grant support). SGr: Olleyes (grant support). JT: AbbVie (consultant); ADVISE/MERIT, NEI (grant support); Gilead (consultant); Roche (consultant); Tarsier Pharma (equity owner); UpToDate (consultant). JHK: Gilead (consultant); Betaliq (equity owner); Tarsier Pharma (equity owner).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.