Search

Background: Intracameral Mydrane might facilitate a more streamlined cataract service and improve the patient experience. There is limited 'real-world' evidence of its use in a UK setting., Methods: As part of a local evaluation of cataract surgery using intracameral Mydrane (group 2; n=60), data were collected on intraoperative pupil size and postoperative visual acuity (VA), as well as the rate of mechanical pupil dilation, intraoperative floppy iris syndrome (IFIS) and complications. Preoperative and theatre turnaround time was recorded and patients completed a validated measure of satisfaction postoperatively. Data were compared with a previous cohort subjected to the existing standard regime of preoperative topical mydriatics (group 1; n=60)., Results: Postoperative VA was comparable between groups (0.09±0.16 vs 0.08±0.15; p=0.59). Pupil size in group 2 was 7.0±1.0 mm prior to capsulorhexis and 6.5±0.29 mm after cortical aspiration, with a smaller pupil in patients on alpha-antagonists (4.7±1.1 mm; p=0.004) at this later time point. Comparing group 2 with group 1, preoperative waiting was less (87 vs 146 min; p<0.0001) and satisfaction was higher (76.0±11.2 vs 66.3±8.6; p<0.0001), although theatre turnaround time was longer (25 min vs 22 min)., Conclusion: Intracameral mydriasis was clinically effective in most patients undergoing cataract surgery and might be associated with an improved patient experience and a more streamlined preoperative flow. Mydrane represents a licensed alternative to the off-label use of other intracameral mydriatic agents, but was not judged to be a cost-effective intervention for routine use in this particular setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Cataract extraction constitutes the largest surgical workload in ophthalmic units throughout the world. Extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE), through a large incision, with insertion of an intraocular lens has been the most widely used method from 1982 until recently. Technological advances have led to the increasing use of phacoemulsification (Phako) to emulsify and remove the lens The technique requires a smaller incision, but requires substantial capital investment in theatre equipment. In this randomised trial we assessed the clinical outcomes and carried out an economic evaluation of the two procedures., Methods: In this two centre randomised trial, 232 patients with age related cataract received ECCE, and 244 received small incision surgery by Phako. The main comparative outcomes were visual acuity, refraction, and complication rates. Resource use was monitored in the two trial centres and in an independent comparator centre. Costs calculated included average cost per procedure, at each stage of follow up., Results: Phako was found to be clinically superior. Surgical complications and capsule opacity within 1 year after surgery were significantly less frequent, and a higher proportion achieved an unaided visual acuity of 6/9 or better (<0.2 logMAR) in the Phako group. Postoperative astigmatism was more stable in Phako. The average cost of a cataract operation and postoperative care within the trial was similar for the two procedures. With the input of additional spectacles for corrected vision at 6 months after surgery, the average cost per procedure was pound359.89 for Phako and pound367.57 for ECCE., Conclusion: Phako is clinically superior to ECCE and is cost effective.