Niharika Bajiya¹, Balbir Singh², Pradeep Dewan³, Anand Aggarwal¹*, Kamalinder Kaur¹, Indu Khosa¹, Chiman Lal¹, Amit Chopra¹, Aman Kalia¹ and Veer Davinder¹

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India
²Member Legislative Assembly and Honorable Health Minister, Vidhan Sabha Punjab, Chandigarh, India
³Medical Director, Maharaj Sawan Singh Charitable Hospital, Beas, Punjab, India

*Corresponding Author: Anand Aggarwal, Cornea, Glaucoma and Refractive Surgery Services, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College Patiala, Punjab, India.

Received: September 02, 2026; Published: October 06, 2026

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether hydrophobic or hydrophilic foldable intraocular lenses provide superior postoperative visual outcomes following phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Patiala. A total of 220 patients undergoing phacoemulsification were included and randomly assigned to two groups based on IOL type: hydrophilic foldable IOL (n = 100) and hydrophobic foldable IOL (n = 120). The hydrophilic group included Hydrofold and Acryfold lenses, while the hydrophobic group included Supraphob, Aurovue, and AcrySof IQ lenses. Postoperative evaluation was performed at multiple follow-up intervals up to 6 months, assessing uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), best corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA), spherical equivalent, and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in visual outcomes postoperatively. At 6 months, excellent BCVA (6/6-6/6p) was achieved in 83.0% of hydrophilic and 82.5% of hydrophobic IOL cases, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). UCVA and BCNVA also improved markedly in both groups, with the majority achieving optimal vision. Refractive outcomes showed excellent predictability, with spherical equivalent values approaching emmetropia (-0.03 D) in both groups. Intraocular pressure remained stable and within physiological limits throughout follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups across all parameters (p > 0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that hydrophilic IOLs (Acryfold, Hydrofold) provided better economic value compared to premium hydrophobic lenses.

Conclusion: Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic foldable intraocular lenses provide comparable and satisfactory visual, refractive, and safety outcomes following phacoemulsification. The choice of IOL material may therefore be guided by cost, availability, and surgeon preference rather than differences in clinical outcomes.

Keywords: Lens; Crystalline; Phacoemulsification; Intraocular Lens (IOL)

References

1. Petrash JM. “Aging and age-related diseases of the ocular lens and vitreous body”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 14 (2013): 54-59.
2. Snell RS and Lemp MA. “Clinical anatomy of the eye. 2^nd edition”. Blackwell Science (1998): 197-204.
3. Asbell P., et al. “Age-related cataract”. Lancet 9459 (2005): 599-609.
4. Liu YC., et al. “Cataracts”. Lancet 10094 (2017): 600-612.
5. Age-related eye disease study research group. “Risk factors associated with age-related nuclear and cortical cataract: a case-control study in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study, AREDS Report No. 5”. Ophthalmology 8 (2001): 1400-1408.
6. Bobrow JC., et al. “Surgery for cataract”. In: AAO Basic and Clinical Science Source (BCSC) Lens and Cataract (2008): 91-161.
7. Isawumi MA., et al. “Couching techniques for cataract treatment in Osogbo, South west Nigeria”. Ghana Medical Journal 2 (2013): 64-69.
8. Grzybowski A and Ascaso FJ. “Sushruta in 600 B.C. introduced extraocular expulsion of lens material”. Acta Ophthalmology2 (2014): 194-197.
9. Davis G. “The evolution of cataract surgery”. Missouri Medicine 1 (2016): 58-62.
10. Hubbell AA. “Samuel Sharp, the first surgeon to make the corneal incision in cataract extraction with a single knife: A biographical and historical sketch”. Medical Library and Historical Journal 4 (1904): 242.1-268.
11. Werner L. “Biocompatibility of intraocular lens materials”. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 1 (2008): 41-49.
12. Ness PJ., et al. “Pathology of 219 human cadaver eyes with 1-piece or 3-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses: capsular bag opacification and sites of square-edged barrier breach”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 5 (2011): 923-930.
13. Maddula S., et al. “Pathology of 157 human cadaver eyes with round-edged or modern square-edged silicone intraocular lenses: analyses of capsule bag opacification”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 4 (2011): 740-748.
14. Kniestedt C and Stamper RL. “Visual acuity and its measurement”. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America 2 (2003): 155-170.
15. Holladay JT. “Proper method for calculating visual acuity”. Journal of Refractive Surgery 4 (1997): 388-391.
16. Zhao Y., et al. “Comparison of hydrophobic and hydrophilic intraocular lens in preventing posterior capsule opacification after cataract surgery: An updated meta-analysis”. Medicine (Baltimore)44 (2017): e8301.
17. Wu Q., et al. “Hydrophobic versus hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens on posterior capsule opacification: a meta-analysis”. International Journal of Ophthalmology 6 (2022): 963-971.
18. Donachie PHJ., et al. “The royal college of ophthalmologists' national ophthalmology database study of cataract surgery: report 9, risk factors for posterior capsule opacification”. Eye (London)8 (2023): 1633-1639.
19. Brar S., et al. “A prospective, randomized, comparative clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of different hydrophobic aspheric monofocal intraocular lenses”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 3 (2023): 771-778.
20. Stanojcic N., et al. “Visual and refractive outcomes and glistenings occurrence after implantation of 2 hydrophobic acrylic aspheric monofocal IOLs”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 7 (2020): 986-994.
21. Xing XJ., et al. “Comparison of optical performance and stability of five different kinds of aspheric IOLs”. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology 4 (2012): 297-301.
22. Naderi K., et al. “Prospective randomized control trial measuring posterior capsular opacification rates and visual outcomes following insertion of two monofocal intraocular lenses: the hydrophobic RayOne 800C and the hydrophilic RayOne 600C: 12-month results”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 3 (2026): 312-315.
23. Bellucci C., et al. “Refractive outcome and 5-year capsulotomy rate of hydrophobic and hydrophilic IOLs with similar optical design: a contralateral study”. Ophthalmology and Therapy 2 (2023): 1387-1395.
24. Grzybowski A., et al. “How do intraocular lens materials influence the outcome of cataract surgery?” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 1 (2025): 18-24.
25. Liu LP., et al. “Effectiveness and safety of a hydrophobic aspheric monofocal intraocular lens with moulding process for cataract surgery”. BMC Ophthalmology1 (2025): 415.
26. Micheletti E and Khan AJ. “Intraocular pressure spikes following cataract extraction: hydrophobic vs hydrophilic acrylic lenses”. Clinical Ophthalmology (2025): 4387-4395.
27. Latham SG., et al. “Clinical safety and efficacy of a preloaded monofocal hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens in a real-world population”. BMC Ophthalmology1 (2021): 379.

Citation

Citation: Anand Aggarwal., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Foldable Intraocular Lenses on Visual Outcomes Following Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery". Acta Scientific Ophthalmology 9:10 (2026): 30-46.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Anand Aggarwal., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.