Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Capsular Tension Ring With Hydrophilic Versus Hydrophobic Intraocular Lenses (CTR-IOL-3ARM)

21 de septiembre de 2026 actualizado por: Ehab Mohamed Elsayed Mohamed Saad, Benha University

Outcomes of Hydrophilic Intraocular Lens Implantation With and Without a Capsular Tension Ring Versus Hydrophobic Intraocular Lens Implantation Alone: A Randomized Controlled Trial

This study compares three approaches to cataract surgery. Cataract surgery involves removing the eye's cloudy natural lens and replacing it with an artificial intraocular lens (IOL) to restore clear vision. IOLs are made from different materials, most commonly a "hydrophilic" (water-attracting) acrylic or a "hydrophobic" (water-repelling) acrylic. Hydrophilic lenses are generally easier and less expensive to use, but have been linked in past research to a higher chance of the lens capsule becoming cloudy again after surgery (posterior capsule opacification, or PCO), sometimes requiring a follow-up laser treatment. Hydrophobic lenses tend to have lower rates of this problem but can cost more.

A capsular tension ring (CTR) is a small flexible ring that can be placed inside the eye at the time of surgery to help hold the lens capsule in a stable, round shape. This study asks whether adding a CTR when a hydrophilic lens is used can reduce the disadvantages usually seen with that lens material.

600 adult patients (ages 50-80) undergoing cataract surgery at three hospitals in Egypt were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a hydrophilic lens plus a CTR, (2) a hydrophobic lens alone (the common comparison approach), or (3) a hydrophilic lens alone without a CTR. Patients were followed for 24 months, and researchers compared vision, glasses prescription accuracy, lens position, capsule clouding, need for laser treatment, and surgical complications between the groups.

The results showed that adding a CTR to a hydrophilic lens produced results very similar to using a hydrophobic lens alone. In contrast, using a hydrophilic lens without a CTR resulted in worse vision, less accurate glasses prescriptions, more lens shifting or tilting, more capsule clouding, a higher need for laser treatment, and more complications compared with the hydrophobic lens. These findings suggest that adding a CTR may be a simple, low-cost way to improve outcomes when a hydrophilic lens is used for cataract surgery.

Descripción general del estudio

Estado

Terminado

Condiciones

Intervención / Tratamiento

Descripción detallada

Background and rationale: Phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is the standard treatment for age-related cataract. IOL material (hydrophilic versus hydrophobic acrylic) is a recognized determinant of long-term capsular biocompatibility, with hydrophobic acrylic lenses generally associated with lower rates of posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and reduced need for neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser capsulotomy compared with hydrophilic acrylic lenses. Capsular tension rings (CTRs) are polymethyl methacrylate devices that stabilize the capsular bag equator and have been proposed to mitigate capsular contraction, lens decentration, and PCO, independent of IOL material. Prior comparative work has generally examined either IOL material effects or CTR effects in isolation, or has compared a composite intervention (hydrophilic IOL plus CTR) against a hydrophobic IOL alone, without a design capable of isolating the CTR's independent contribution.

Objectives: To compare visual, refractive, anatomical (IOL position and posterior capsule opacification), and safety outcomes among three approaches to routine cataract surgery: (1) hydrophilic acrylic IOL implantation combined with a CTR (Group A); (2) hydrophobic acrylic IOL implantation alone (Group B); and (3) hydrophilic acrylic IOL implantation alone, without a CTR (Group C). The inclusion of Group C, using the same hydrophilic IOL model as Group A but without CTR insertion, was designed specifically to allow assessment of the CTR's independent contribution when compared against Group A, in addition to the material-based comparisons of Groups A and C against Group B.

Design: Prospective, randomized, parallel-group, three-arm controlled trial conducted at three tertiary ophthalmology centers in Egypt (Zagazig University Hospital, Benha University Hospital, and Al-Azhar University Hospital). Eligible adults aged 50-80 years with visually significant age-related cataract (LOCS III grade >=3) were randomized 1:1:1 using a computer-generated allocation sequence, with allocation concealment via sealed opaque envelopes opened intraoperatively. Outcome assessors and data analysts were blinded to treatment allocation; operating surgeons were not blinded due to the nature of the intervention.

Interventions: All participants underwent standardized phacoemulsification via a 2.2 mm clear corneal incision with a ~5.5 mm continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis. Group A received a hydrophilic acrylic IOL (Eyecryl, Biotech Healthcare, India) plus a polymethyl methacrylate CTR (Auroring CTR 11, Aurolab, India). Group B received a hydrophobic acrylic IOL (AcrySof IQ, Alcon Laboratories, USA) without a CTR. Group C received the same hydrophilic acrylic IOL as Group A, without CTR insertion.

Outcomes: Primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR) and manifest spherical equivalent refractive error at 24 months, with longitudinal assessment at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included posterior capsule opacification grade (slit-lamp retroillumination, graded per Aslam et al.), Nd:YAG capsulotomy rate, IOL centration and tilt (anterior segment optical coherence tomography), and intraoperative and postoperative complications (posterior capsule rupture, zonular dialysis, vitreous loss, iris trauma, cystoid macular edema, intraocular pressure elevation, corneal edema, and endophthalmitis).

Follow-up: Scheduled visits at day 1, week 1, and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 postoperatively, with the 24-month visit representing the final prespecified assessment.

Statistical analysis: Continuous variables were compared across groups using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis testing as appropriate, with post-hoc pairwise comparisons for Group A vs. Group B and Group C vs. Group B. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Repeated-measures ANOVA assessed longitudinal group x time interactions for visual and refractive outcomes.

Tipo de estudio

Intervencionista

Inscripción (Actual)

600

Fase

  • No aplica

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Benha
      • Banhā, Benha, Egipto, 13111
        • Benha University

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

18 años y mayores (Adulto, Adulto Mayor)

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Géneros elegibles para el estudio

Todos

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 50-80 years
  • Visually significant age-related cataract, defined as nuclear opacity grade >=3 according to the Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III), graded preoperatively under standardized mydriasis via slit-lamp biomicroscopy
  • Clear cornea
  • Adequate pupillary dilation
  • Anatomically normal capsular bag with no evidence of zonular weakness
  • No ocular comorbidities expected to affect visual or refractive outcomes

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous intraocular surgery
  • Ocular trauma
  • Pseudoexfoliation syndrome
  • Posterior polar cataract
  • Zonular instability
  • Complicated cataract
  • Active intraocular inflammation
  • Retinal or optic nerve pathology
  • Anticipated need for additional capsular support devices beyond the study protocol

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Propósito principal: Tratamiento
  • Asignación: Aleatorizado
  • Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
  • Enmascaramiento: Único

Armas e Intervenciones

Grupo de participantes/brazo
Intervención / Tratamiento
Experimental: U.S. flag An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Skip to main page

Phacoemulsification with implantation of a hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (Eyecryl, Biotech Healthcare, India) combined with insertion of a polymethyl methacrylate capsular tension ring (Auroring CTR 11, Aurolab, India).

Foldable hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens implanted in the capsular bag following phacoemulsification.

Polymethyl methacrylate capsular tension ring (overall diameter 13.0 mm, compressed diameter 11.0 mm) inserted into the capsular bag to distribute equatorial zonular forces and maintain capsular bag contour.

Comparador activo: Group B: Hydrophobic IOL alone

Phacoemulsification with implantation of a hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens (AcrySof IQ, Alcon Laboratories, USA), without a capsular tension ring.

Foldable hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens implanted in the capsular bag following phacoemulsification.

Experimental: Group C: Hydrophilic IOL alone

Phacoemulsification with implantation of the same hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens used in Group A (Eyecryl, Biotech Healthcare, India), without capsular tension ring insertion.

Foldable hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens implanted in the capsular bag following phacoemulsification.

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA)
Periodo de tiempo: 24 months postoperatively

Best-corrected visual acuity measured in logMAR units, assessed longitudinally at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with between-group comparison at 24 months as the primary efficacy endpoint.

24 months postoperatively

Medidas de resultado secundarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Manifest spherical equivalent refractive error
Periodo de tiempo: 24 months postoperatively

Manifest spherical equivalent refractive error (diopters), assessed longitudinally at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with between-group comparison at 24 months as the primary efficacy endpoint. Proportion of eyes within +/-0.5 D and +/-1.0 D of target refraction was also assessed at 24 months.

24 months postoperatively

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Patrocinador

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

15 de diciembre de 2022

Finalización primaria (Actual)

15 de mayo de 2026

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

15 de mayo de 2026

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

21 de septiembre de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

21 de septiembre de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

25 de septiembre de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

25 de septiembre de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

21 de septiembre de 2026

Última verificación

1 de septiembre de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Otros números de identificación del estudio

  • ZU-BU-AU-CTR-IOL-3ARM-2023

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .