'Bilateral same-day cataract surgery should routinely be offered to patients' - yes

Immediate sequential vs delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

The main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) compared with delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched. Outcome measures were postoperative visual acuity, postoperative spherical equivalent (refractive outcome), endophthalmitis, corneal edema, pseudophakic macular edema, and posterior capsule rupture (PCR). 13 articles met criteria for final inclusion. A total of 11 068 622 participants (18 802 043 eyes) were included. No statistically significant differences between ISBCS and DSBCS were identified in all the postoperative outcomes evaluated. However, a higher risk for PCR was identified in the ISBCS group from the pooled analysis of nonrandomized studies (risk ratio, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.08-1.67, P = .0081). In our view, the ISBCS approach has an acceptable safety-efficacy profile, comparable with DSBCS. Future investigations are warranted, with a focus on the analysis of risk factors for surgical complications, patient-reported outcome-measures, and cost effectiveness.

Immediate Sequential Bilateral Surgery in Refractive Lens Exchange Patients: Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in patients who underwent bilateral same-day refractive lens exchange (RLE).

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients of a private intraocular surgery provider in the United Kingdom who underwent RLE in both eyes on the same day with treatment dates between March 2018 and December 2021.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes and AEs were collected for a continuous cohort of patients undergoing bilateral same-day RLE (in the absence of visually significant cataracts) or had mild cataracts (corrected visual acuity ≥ 20/40). One-month clinical outcomes were analyzed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Refractive outcomes and visual acuity, intraoperative and postoperative AEs, and secondary surgical interventions recorded within the first month after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 17 330 patients (34 660 eyes) were included in the analysis. Of these, 28 827 eyes received a multifocal intraocular lens (IOL), and 5833 eyes had a monofocal IOL. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (D) of intended refraction was 85.5% and 86.2% for monofocal and multifocal IOL eyes, respectively. There was a total of 55 intraoperative AEs recorded in 55 eyes of 54 patients (per-eye incidence: 0.159%). Posterior capsule tear was the most common intraoperative event occurring in 37 eyes (0.107%). The number of AEs recorded within the first postoperative month was 267, occurring in 263 eyes of 177 patients (per-eye incidence: 0.759%). These included cystoid macular edema (CME) (172 eyes; 0.496%), significant corneal edema (28 eyes; 0.081%), persistent inflammation (27 eyes; 0.078%), significantly raised intraocular pressure (27 eyes; 0.078%), toxic anterior segment syndrome (8 eyes; 0.023%), wound leak (3 eyes; 0.009%), retinal detachment (1 eye; 0.003%), and retinal tear (1 eye; 0.003%). There were 56 secondary surgical interventions recorded within the first month of surgery, occurring in 54 eyes of 47 patients (per-eye incidence: 0.156%). The most common secondary intervention was the rotation of a misaligned toric IOL (24 eyes; 0.069%).

CONCLUSIONS

Elective same-day bilateral RLE had a low incidence of serious AEs, and high refractive predictability.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts

BACKGROUND

Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.  With regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific emphasis on the rate of complications, postoperative anisometropia, and subjective visual function in order to formulate evidence-based national Danish guidelines for cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central databases identified three randomized controlled trials that compared outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or bilateral cataract surgery on two different dates. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We did not find any difference in the risk of complications or visual outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or surgery on two different dates. The quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. None of the studies reported the prevalence of postoperative anisometropia. In conclusion, we cannot provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of ISBCS due to the lack of high quality evidence. Therefore, the decision to perform ISBCS should be taken after careful discussion between the surgeon and the patient.