Immediate changes in intraocular pressure after clear corneal micro-incision versus small-incision cataract surgery

Evaluating the safety and operability of asymmetric trapezoid and near-square side-port incision in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy, safety, and consistency of asymmetric trapezoid and near-square side-port incision in cataract surgery.

SETTING

Aier Eye Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.

DESIGN

Prospective pilot study.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent phacoemulsification between January 2022 and August 2022. They were divided into Group A and Group B using the random number table method. Group A was given a near-square side-port incision and Group B was given an asymmetric trapezoid side-port incision. We contrasted the differences in incision length, width, and shape; surgical time; and postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

220 eyes of 220 patients were included. The mean external width of the incision in Group A was much smaller than that in Group B ( P < .01), and the consistency of the incision diameter in Group A was better than that in Group B. There was no statistically significant difference in incision length between the 2 groups ( P = .75). 1 day after surgery, there was no statistically significant difference in incision morphology between the 2 groups ( P = .72). The operating time for Group A was significantly shorter than that of Group B ( P < .01). There was no obvious incision leakage in both groups after surgery, and the IOP was generally elevated after surgery, but there was no significant statistical difference between the 2 groups ( P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that a near-square side-port results in better consistency of incision width and shorter surgical time.

Binocular visual function of myopic pseudophakic monovision

PURPOSE

To compare binocular visual function of myopic pseudophakic patients with myopic monovision to patients without monovision.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized comparative study METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to one of two groups: patients whose refraction was targeted to -2.75 diopters (D) in the dominant eye and -1.75D in the nondominant eye (myopic monovision group), and patients whose refraction was targeted to -2.75D bilaterally (non-monovision group). Binocular uncorrected and corrected visual acuity at various distances was measured using an all-distance vision tester, and contrast visual acuity and near stereoacuity were examined.

RESULTS

In the myopic monovision group mean refraction was -2.74D in the dominant eyes and -1.94D in the nondominant eyes, and in the non-monovision group it was -2.96D bilaterally. Mean binocular uncorrected distance (UDVA) and intermediate visual acuity (UIVA) from 0.5 m to 5.0 m were significantly better in the myopic monovision group than in the non-monovision group (P≤ 0.0134), while binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 0.3 m did not differ significantly between groups. The distribution of UIVA and UDVA was significantly better in the myopic monovision group (P≤ 0.0035). Corrected visual acuity at any distance, photopic and mesopic contrast visual acuity, and stereoacuity did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with myopic monovision exhibited significantly better binocular UIVA and UDVA than those without monovision, while UNVA, corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and stereoacuity were comparable between groups, suggesting that this method is useful for patients who want to see near and intermediate distances without spectacles.

Different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract

BACKGROUND

Age-related cataract is the principal cause of blindness and visual impairment in the world. Phacoemulsification is the main surgical procedure used to treat cataract. The comparative effectiveness and safety of different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification has not been determined.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of smaller versus larger incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract. The primary outcome of this review was surgically induced astigmatism at three months after surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1947 to 28 October 2016), PubMed (1948 to 28 October 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 28 October 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com; last searched 13 May 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov; searched 28 October 2016), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp; searched 28 October 2016). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different-sized incisions in people with age-related cataract undergoing phacoemulsification.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs with a total of 2737 participants (3120 eyes). These trials were conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, France, India, Italy, Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey. Half of the 26 trials were conducted in China. We judged all trials as mostly at unclear to low risk of bias. The included RCTs compared four different-sized incisions:<= 1.5 mm, 1.8 mm, 2.2 mm, and approximately 3.0 mm. These incisions were performed using three different techniques: coaxial and biaxial microincision phacoemulsification (C-MICS and B-MICS) and standard phacoemulsification. Not all studies provided data in a form that could be included in this review. Five studies had three arms.Fifteen trials compared C-MICS (2.2 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Very low-certainty evidence suggested less surgically induced astigmatism in the C-MICS group at three months compared with standard phacoemulsification (mean difference (MD) -0.19 diopters (D), 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.30 to -0.09; 996 eyes; 8 RCTs). There was low-certainty evidence that both groups achieved similar best-corrected visual acuity (MD 0.00 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 242 eyes; 3 RCTs). There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in endothelial cell loss and central corneal thickness comparing C-MICS with standard phacoemulsification (MD -7.23 cells/mm², 95% CI -78.66 to 64.20; 596 eyes; 4 RCTs) and (MD -0.68 μm, 95% CI -3.26 to 1.90; 487 eyes; 5 RCTs).Nine trials compared C-MICS (1.8 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Very low-certainty evidence suggested less astigmatism at three months in the C-MICS group compared with standard phacoemulsification group (MD -0.23 D, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.13; 561 eyes; 5 RCTs). Low-certainty evidence suggested little or no difference in best-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell loss, and central corneal thickness in the two groups at three months (MD -0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00; 192 eyes; 3 RCTs), (MD 7.56 cells/mm², 95% CI -67.65 to 82.77; 380 eyes; 5 RCTs), and (MD -1.52 μm, 95% CI -6.29 to 3.25; 245 eyes; 3 RCTs).Six studies compared C-MICS (1.8 mm) with C-MICS (2.2 mm). There was low-certainty evidence that astigmatism, visual acuity, and central corneal thickness were similar in the two groups at three months (MD 0.04 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.16; 259 eyes; 3 RCTs), (MD 0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04; 200 eyes; 3 RCTs), and (MD 0.45 μm, 95% CI -2.70 to 3.60; 100 eyes; 1 RCT). Very low-certainty evidence suggested higher endothelial cell loss in the 1.8 mm group (MD 213.00 cells/mm², 95% CI 11.15 to 414.85; 70 eyes; 1 RCT).Four studies compared B-MICS (<= 1.5 mm) with standard phacoemulsification (about 3.0 mm). Astigmatism was similar in the two groups at three months (MD -0.01 D, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 368 eyes; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence on visual acuity, suggesting little or no difference between the two groups (MD -0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.00; 464 eyes; 3 RCTs). Low-certainty evidence on endothelial cell loss and central corneal thickness also suggested little or no difference between the two groups (MD 55.83 cells/mm², 95% CI -34.93 to 146.59; 280 eyes; 1 RCT) and (MD 0.10 μm, 95% CI -14.04 to 14.24; 90 eyes; 1 RCT).None of the trials reported on quality of life. One trial reported that no participants experienced endophthalmitis or posterior capsule rupture; they also reported little or no difference between incision groups regarding corneal edema (risk ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.63; 362 eyes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Phacoemulsification with smaller incisions was not consistently associated with less surgically induced astigmatism compared with phacoemulsification with larger incisions. Coaxial microincision phacoemulsification may be associated with less astigmatism than standard phacoemulsification, but the difference was small, in the order of 0.2 D, and the evidence was uncertain. Safety outcomes and quality of life were not adequately reported; these should be addressed in future studies.

Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) and standard coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS).

METHODS

The outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting C-MICS and C-SICS were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library in May 2015. The final meta-analysis was conducted on the following intraoperative and postoperative outcomes: ultrasound time (UST), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), balanced salt solution use (BSS use), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), mean surgery time, endothelial cell loss percentage (ECL%), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), increased central corneal thickness (CCT), laser flare photometry values and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA).

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs, involving 1136 eyes, were included in the final meta-analysis. No significant between-group differences were detected in EPT, BSS use, CDE, BCVA, laser flare photometry values or increased CCT. However, the C-MICS group showed less SIA (at postoperative day 7: p<0.01; at postoperative day 30 or more: p<0.01) and greater ECL% (at postoperative day 60 or more: p<0.01), whereas the C-SICS group required a shorter UST (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that the C-MICS technique was more advantageous than C-SICS in terms of SIA, but C-MICS required a longer UST and induced a higher ECL%. Further studies should be done to confirm our results.