International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology
Volume 16, Issue 7s, 2026

Are Diabetic Patients More Liable to Intraocular Pressure Elevation after YAG Laser Posterior Capsulotomy than Non-diabetics?

Alyaa Hossam El din Saad AboSief1, Adel Mohamed Abdul Wahab2, Alaa Fathy Mahmoud3, Tamer Hassan El-Sersy4

1Faculty of Medicine, 6th of October University, Egypt
Email: Alyaahossam4@gmail.com

2Faculty of Medicine (for Girls), Al-Azhar University, Egypt

3Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Egypt

4Faculty of Medicine, October 6 University, Egypt


ABSTRACT

Background: Opacified posterior capsule of the human lens (PCO) is a common vision-blurring complication after cataract surgery. YAG laser capsulotomy is an effective, relatively safe procedure to treat PCO, effectively improves the visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity. Increase intraocular pressure (IOP) following YAG laser is the mainly transient complication after the procedure.

Aim of the study: to compare IOP elevation in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients following YAG laser of the posterior capsule to treat posterior capsular opacification.

Patients and methods: This is non–randomized prospective comparative interventional study. The study was conducted on 60 eyes of 44 patients (26 males, and 18 females) who were attended to Ophthalmology department at Al-Zahraa University Hospital, with posterior capsular opacification after cataract surgery. Patients were divided into two equal groups: Group A diabetic: 30 eyes in 19 patients, and Group B non diabetic: 30 eyes in 25 patients. Surgeries was carried under surface anaesthesia, in a cruciate manner technique, least number of shots and least energy power to form an opening of the posterior capsule equal in diameter to the scotopic pupil size. Follow up was done after two hours, one day, one week, and one month after laser treatment. At each visit the patient was examined and measurement of uncorrected distance visual acuity and (UDCVA), best distance corrected visual acuity (BDCVA), anterior segment examination by using slit lamp for anterior chamber evaluation (depth and content), IOL for any injuries and decentered, applanation tonometry and indirect ophthalmoscopy, notation for any complications.

Results: In Group A, mean baseline IOP before Nd-YAG laser posterior capsulotomy was 13.45 mmHg. At two hours, one day, one week and one month following the operation, IOP was 15.47, 14.06, 13.81 and 13.64 mmHg respectively. No IOP elevation above the pre-laser level at the end of follow up visits at one month. In Group B: mean baseline IOP was 14.19 mmHg. At two hours, one day, one week and one month after capsulotomy, IOP was 16.01, 14.88, 14.92 and 13.92 mmHg respectively. No IOP elevation more than 5 mmHg was observed at the end of follow up visits. The rise in IOP was transient. The difference between mean pre-laser IOP and two hours after laser capsulotomy was statistical highly significant and was significant one day after the operation. Differences were insignificant after one week and one month. Differences between both groups were non-significant at all follow up visits. There were no persistent elevation of IOP after one month follow up period, and IOP returned to the pre-laser level in both groups. No glaucomatous fundus changes were observed in any of our cases.

Conclusion: Nd-YAG is an effective a quick, painless laser procedure treatment modality for posterior capsular opacification. IOP elevation is a frequent complication after YAG laser capsulotomy, which may be directly proportional to laser energy power, the number of shots, and the cumulative energy. The maximum elevation of IOP is two hours after the procedure and is usually becomes normalized within seven days after the operation.

Keywords: Nd-YAG laser, Posterior capsulotomy, Complications, Intraocular pressure.

How to cite this article: AboSief AHES, Wahab AMA, Mahmoud AF, El-Sersy TH. Are Diabetic Patients More Liable to Intraocular Pressure Elevation after YAG Laser Posterior Capsulotomy than Non-diabetics? Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(7s): 877-886; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16.7s.93

Source of support: None

Conflict of interest: None