Comparison of pupil expansion devices in small pupil phacoemulsification

Purpose:To study the outcomes of phacoemulsification in small pupils (<= 4 mm) using pupil expansion devices at a tertiary eye care center in South India.Methods:The study design is prospective, randomized, comparative, and interventional. Mechanical pupil dilatation with iris retractors (group I), B-HEX ring (group II), and Gupta ring (group III) was compared with respect to pupil size achieved (intraoperative), total surgical time, device addition time, complications, endothelial cell loss, and postoperative best corrected visual acuity.Results:Among 36 participants (12 in each group), the mean pupil size, total surgical time, and device addition time were maximum with iris retractors. Intraoperatively, sphincter tear was seen in two eyes in the iris retractors group and one eye in the Gupta ring group. In the B-HEX ring group, only two flanges of the ring could be engaged in two participants, one patient had iris bleeding (during stretching of the iris), and one patient had anterior lens capsular tear. Among all three groups, there was no statistically significant difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell count, and coefficient of variation obtained in the preoperative period, postoperative Day 7 and Day 30, respectively.Conclusion:In our study, in more than 50% of cases, the cause of small pupil was idiopathic/senile. Among nonidiopathic causes, PXF was the most common association. Although iris retractors are cost-effective and give maximum intraoperative dilatation, there is a need of four additional side ports to be made, thus increasing the total surgical time and device addition time. On the other hand, B-HEX and Gupta ring provide comparable intraoperative dilation and device addition time and also have comparable postoperative outcomes in terms of postoperative pupil size and complications.