Purpose: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a single perioperative subconjunctival injection of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) with steroid drops for the prevention of macular oedema and ocular inflammation after cataract surgery. Methods: This prospective non-randomized controlled clinical trial analysed 101 eyes of 101 patients having an elective cataract surgery at Kymenlaakso Central Hospital, Kotka, Finland. Fifty eyes received conventional postoperative care with dexamethasone 1 mg/ml eye drops (DEX), and 51 eyes received a perioperative 20 mg subconjunctival injection of TA. None of the eyes received postoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis. The main outcome measures were aqueous flare, central retinal thickness (CRT), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and intraocular pressure (IOP) measured at 7, 28 and 90 days after surgery.Results: Central retinal thickness (CRT) increased in DEX but not in TAtreated eyes at 7 days (+1.2 AE 20.1 lm and À9.2 AE 24.8 lm, p = 0.031), at 28 days (+23.8 AE 62.6 lm and À3.3 AE 27.7 lm, p = 0.008) and at 90 days (+8.5 AE 24.4 lm and À5.5 AE 33.4 lm, p = 0.026). Aqueous flare increased from baseline in both groups but remained higher in DEX eyes at 90 days (+3.3 AE 9.9 photons/ms and À0.2 AE 6.6 photons/ms, p = 0.021). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and IOP changes were similar, and ocular tolerance was good in both groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Perioperative subconjunctival TA was effective in preventing ocular inflammation and macular oedema after cataract surgery. Subconjunctival TA combined with intracameral cefuroxime provides a noteworthy option for dropless postoperative care in modern cataract surgery.

Purpose: Current cataract surgery guidelines recommend routine use of topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing pseudophakic cystoid macular oedema (PCME). Here, we compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of two potent NSAIDs, nepafenac and preservative-free diclofenac following cataract surgery. Methods: Randomized, double-blind, prospective single-centre study. Ninety-six eyes of 95 patients undergoing routine cataract surgery were randomized 1:1 either to nepafenac (Nevanac, 1 mg/ml) or diclofenac (Dicloabak, 1 mg/ml) for 3 weeks. Seventy-three patients accounting for 73 eyes completed the entire follow-up. Aqueous flare and central retinal thickness (CRT) analysis were conducted preoperatively and at control visits 28 days and 3 months after surgery. A structured home questionnaire and interview were used to record any adverse effects of the topical medications, subjective visual recovery and the dispenser's ease of use. Results: No differences were observed between the groups for aqueous flare, CRT, speed of recovery or visual acuity gain. Seven patients (16%) on nepafenac and 20 patients (48%) on preservative-free diclofenac reported symptoms related to topical use of NSAID medications (p = 0.001). Conclusion: No differences in clinical efficacy were found between potent NSAIDs, while tolerability might be an issue.

Purpose 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.

Eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome may be predisposed to an increased aqueous flare and macular edema after cataract surgery. This study outlines the need to determine the optimal anti-inflammatory medication after cataract surgery in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome.