Nepafenac 0.1% versus fluorometholone 0.1% for preventing cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To compare a topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (nepafenac 0.1%) and a topical steroidal antiinflammatory drug (fluorometholone 0.1%) in preventing cystoid macular edema (CME) and blood aqueous barrier (BAB) disruption after small-incision cataract extraction with foldable intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. SETTING: Shohzankai Medical Foundation, Miyake Eye Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. DESIGN: Randomized double-masked single-center clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive nepafenac 0.1% eyedrops or fluorometholone 0.1% eyedrops for 5 weeks after phacoemulsification with foldable IOL implantation. The incidence and severity of CME were evaluated by fluorescein angiography, retinal foveal thickness on optical coherence tomography, and BAB disruption on laser flare cell photometry. RESULTS: Thirty patients received nepafenac and 29 patients, fluorometholone. Five weeks postoperatively, the incidence of fluorescein angiographic CME was significantly lower in the nepafenac group (14.3%) than in the fluorometholone group (81.5%) (P<.0001). The fovea was thinner in the nepafenac group than in the fluorometholone group at 2 weeks (P=.0266) and 5 weeks (P=.0055). At 1, 2, and 5 weeks, anterior chamber flare was significantly less in the nepafenac group than in the fluorometholone group (P<.0001, P<.0001, and P=.0304, respectively). The visual acuity recovery from baseline was significantly greater in the nepafenac group (80.0%) than in the fluorometholone group (55.2%) (P=.0395). There were no serious side effects in either group. CONCLUSION: Nepafenac was more effective than fluorometholone in preventing angiographic CME and BAB disruption, and results indicate nepafenac leads to more rapid visual recovery. Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosures are found in the footnotes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37:1581-1588 (C) 2011 ASCRS and ESCRS