Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

BACKGROUND

Age-related cataract is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. Therefore, it is important to establish the most effective surgical technique for cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to examine the effects of two types of cataract surgery for age-related cataract: phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (January 1970 to May 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of phacoemulsification compared to ECCE for age-related cataract.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected and assessed all studies. We defined two primary outcomes: 'good functional vision' (presenting visual acuity of 6/12 or better) and 'poor visual outcome' (best corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60) at three and 12 months after surgery. We also collected data on intra and postoperative complications, and the cost of the procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 1228 participants, ranging from age 45 to 94. The studies were generally at unclear risk of bias due to poorly reported trial methods. No study reported presenting visual acuity, so we report both uncorrected (UCVA) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Studies varied in visual acuity assessment methods and time frames at which outcomes were reported. Participants in the phacoemulsification group were more likely to achieve UCVA of 6/12 or more at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.41, two studies, 492 participants) and one year (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.73, one study, 439 participants). People in the phacoemulsification group were also more likely to achieve BCVA of 6/12 or more at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, four studies, 645 participants) and one year (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.14, one study, 439 participants), but the difference between the two groups was smaller. No trials reported BCVA less than 6/60 but three trials reported BCVA worse than 6/9 and 6/18: there were fewer events of this outcome in the phacoemulsification group than the ECCE group at both the three-month (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55, three studies, 604 participants) and 12-month time points (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05, one study, 439 participants). Three trials reported posterior capsule rupture: this occurred more commonly in the ECCE group than the phacoemulsification group but small numbers of events mean the true effect is uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22, three studies, 688 participants). Iris prolapse, cystoid macular oedema and posterior capsular opacification were also higher in the ECCE group than the phacoemulsification group. Phacoemulsification surgical costs were higher than ECCE in two studies. A third study reported similar costs for phacoemulsification and ECCE up to six weeks postoperatively, but following this time point ECCE incurred additional costs due to additional visits, spectacles and laser treatment to achieve a similar outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Removing cataract by phacoemulsification may result in a better visual acuity compared to ECCE, with a lower complication rate. The review is currently underpowered to detect differences for rarer outcomes, including poor visual outcome. The lower cost of ECCE may justify its use in a patient population where high-volume surgery is a priority, however, there are a lack of data comparing phacoemulsification and ECCE in lower-income settings.

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

BACKGROUND

Age-related cataract is a major cause of blindness and visual morbidity worldwide. It is therefore important to establish the optimal technique of lens removal in cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and phacoemulsification techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (January 1970 to July 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for age-related cataract that compared MSICS and phacoemulsification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed all studies. We defined two primary outcomes: 'good functional vision' (presenting visual acuity of 6/12 or better) and 'poor visual outcome' (best corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60). We collected data on these outcomes at three and 12 months after surgery. Complications such as posterior capsule rupture rates and other intra- and postoperative complications were also assessed. In addition, we examined cost effectiveness of the two techniques. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials in this review with a total of 1708 participants. Trials were conducted in India, Nepal and South Africa. Follow-up ranged from one day to six months, but most trials reported at six to eight weeks after surgery. Overall the trials were judged to be at risk of bias due to unclear reporting of masking and follow-up. No studies reported presenting visual acuity so data were collected on both best-corrected (BCVA) and uncorrected (UCVA) visual acuity. Most studies reported visual acuity of 6/18 or better (rather than 6/12 or better) so this was used as an indicator of good functional vision. Seven studies (1223 participants) reported BCVA of 6/18 or better at six to eight weeks (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.99 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.01) indicating no difference between the MSICS and phacoemulsification groups. Three studies (767 participants) reported UCVA of 6/18 or better at six to eight weeks, with a pooled RR indicating a more favourable outcome with phacoemulsification (0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96). One trial (96 participants) reported UCVA at six months with a RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.26).Regarding BCVA of less than 6/60: there were only 11/1223 events reported. The pooled Peto odds ratio was 2.48 indicating a more favourable outcome using phacoemulsification but with wide confidence intervals (0.74 to 8.28) which means that we are uncertain as to the true effect.The number of complications reported were also low for both techniques. Again this means the review is underpowered to detect a difference between the two techniques with respect to these complications. One study reported on cost which was more than four times higher using phacoemulsification than MSICS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this review, removing cataract by phacoemulsification may result in better UCVA in the short term (up to three months after surgery) compared to MSICS, but similar BCVA. There is a lack of data on long-term visual outcome. The review is currently underpowered to detect differences for rarer outcomes, including poor visual outcome. In view of the lower cost of MSICS, this may be a favourable technique in the patient populations examined in these studies, where high volume surgery is a priority. Further studies are required with longer-term follow-up to better assess visual outcomes and complications which may develop over time such as posterior capsule opacification.