Abstract
BackgroundWe conducted this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) and standard coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS).MethodsThe 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).ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
Highlights
Due to recent improvements in phacoemulsification techniques, advances in surgical instruments, and the advent of the foldable intraocular lens (IOL), the coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) technique has gained global popularity among ophthalmologists
No significant between-group differences were detected in effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), balanced salt solution use (BSS use), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), laser flare photometry values or increased central corneal thickness (CCT)
The present meta-analysis suggested that the C-MICS technique was more advantageous than coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS) in terms of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), but C-MICS required a longer ultrasound time (UST) and induced a higher ECL %
Summary
Due to recent improvements in phacoemulsification techniques, advances in surgical instruments, and the advent of the foldable intraocular lens (IOL), the C-MICS technique has gained global popularity among ophthalmologists. Prior to these advances, the C-SICS approach, which required a 2.8 to 3.2 mm incision, was the most widely used surgical approach; using the C-MICS technique can reduce the incision to less than 2.2 mm [1,2]. Numerous clinical trials have been designed and conducted to determine whether C-MICS has more advantages than C-SICS; a consensus has not yet been reached We conducted this meta-analysis to quantitatively ascertain if a switch from C-SICS to C-MICS is necessary. 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)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
