UNASSIGNED: To assess the risk for uveitis, pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME), and posterior capsular opacification (PCO) associated with the use of pupil expansion devices in cataract surgery.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective comparative cohort study.
UNASSIGNED: Patients who underwent routine cataract surgery with and without pupil expansion devices at the Department of Ophthalmology, Bristol Eye Hospital, UK, between January 2008 and December 2017.
UNASSIGNED: This study included 39,460 eyes operated without a pupil expansion device and 699 eyes operated with the device. Odds ratios for uveitis and PCME when using a pupil expansion device were calculated using univariate and multivariate regression analysis, having age, gender, diabetes, pseudoexfoliation, and pupil expansion device as independent variables. Multivariate Cox regression controlling for age and gender was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for Nd : YAG laser capsulotomies.
UNASSIGNED: Postoperative uveitis and PCME were reported in 3.9% and 2.7% of the eyes operated with a pupil expansion device compared to 2.3% and 1.3% operated without the device (p=0.005 and p=0.002, respectively). In univariate regression analysis, eyes with pupil expansion devices showed a higher risk of postoperative uveitis or PMCE after cataract surgery (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.39-2.55, p<0.001). In multivariate regression analysis, the risk for PMCE was greater among diabetic patients and in eyes with a pupil expansion device than in those without (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.24-1.83, P<0.001; OR 1.90, 95%CI 1.16-3.11, P=0.01). In Cox regression analysis adjusted for the patient\'s age and gender, the use of a pupil expansion device was associated with higher Nd : YAG laser capsulotomy rates (HR 1.316, 95%CI 1.011-1.714, P=0.041).
UNASSIGNED: In our large cohort study, the use of pupil expansion devices in cataract surgery was associated with an increased risk of major postoperative complications. Effective anti-inflammatory treatment and follow-up are warranted in eyes operated with a pupil expansion device.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a hinged pupil expansion device (PED) in eyes with small pupils undergoing phacoemulsification.
UNASSIGNED: In this prospective, multicenter, interventional case series of 57 eyes with suboptimal pharmacologic pupil dilation (<5 mm diameter), a hinged PED (I-Ring, Beaver-Visitec International, Waltham, MA) was applied to facilitate surgical visualization during cataract surgery. The pupil diameters (PD) were measured at different stages of the procedure and at the 1-month follow-up visit. Rate of successful intraoperative PED deployment, pupil size, and shape were assessed.
UNASSIGNED: The mean patient age was 70.5 ± 12.1 years. The I-Ring PED was successfully applied in all eyes. The mean PD at various stages were 4.1 ± 1.1 mm (dilation with eye drops only preoperatively), 4.3 ± 1.1 mm (dilation after intracameral epinephrine and ophthalmic viscoelastic device), 6.80 ± 0.00 mm (with PED applied), and 5.7 ± 1.1 mm (end of surgery). A statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) was observed between the mean PD with intracameral medications and with PED application. Postoperative circular pupil was observed in 54 of 57 eyes (94.7%) and the mean eccentricity index (n = 57 eyes) was 0.11 ± 0.22. No significant adverse events were observed.
UNASSIGNED: The I-Ring PED safely and effectively provided and maintained adequate pupil expansion and surgical visualization in eyes with small pupils undergoing cataract surgery. Postoperatively 95% of eyes attained circular pupils. This hinged PED is an additional instrumentation option for the safe and effective expansion of inadequately sized pupils during cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Novel pupil expansion devices are widely recognized for their intraoperative feasibility in safe small pupil cataract surgeries. To assess whether the use of pupil expansion devices affects recovery from cataract surgery.
METHODS: A post hoc analysis of five consecutive prospective randomized clinical trials. 536 eyes of 536 patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were analysed according to the use of pupil expansion device. Thirty-four eyes were operated with pupil expansion device and 502 eyes without. Clinical outcome parameters were recorded at 28 days and 3 months.
RESULTS: Patient age and gender distribution, and baseline clinical outcome parameters were comparable between study groups. Pseudoexfoliation syndrome, glaucoma and medication for benign prostatic hyperplasia were more frequently present; phacoemulsification energy was higher and operation time longer in eyes with pupil expansion device. At 28 days, aqueous flare increased by 12.0 ± 25.1 pu/mseconds and mean central subfield macular thickness by 16.2 ± 24.4 μm in eyes with pupil expansion device, when compared to 4.6 ± 14.8 pu/mseconds (p = 0.015) and 7.0 ± 33.9 μm (p = 0.064) in eyes without the device. At 3-month follow-up, clinically significant pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) was reported in 12% of eyes with pupil expansion device and in 2% of eyes without (p = 0.006). After adjusting for the presence of confounding factors, hazard for clinically significant PCME was greater in eyes with pupil expansion device than in those without (HR 5.41, 95% CI 1.35-21.71, p = 0.017).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of pupil expansion device may predispose eyes to increased risk of clinically significant PCME. Effective anti-inflammatory treatment and follow-up are warranted in eyes with pupil expansion device.