Comparison of Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss during Manual Small-incision Cataract Surgery using Visco-expression versus Irrigating Wire Vectis-assisted Nucleus Removal: A Prospective Randomised Study

Abstract

Introduction: Age-related cataract is the leading cause of curable blindness in India, and Manual Small-Incision Cataract Surgery (MSICS) is a machine-independent and cost-effective alternative to phacoemulsification for handling this significant burden. In every cataract surgery, some endothelial cell loss is inevitable. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare endothelial cell loss in the two most commonly practiced methods of nucleus delivery in MSICS. Aim: To compare and analyse endothelial cell loss during MSICS using viscoelastic/viscoexpression-assisted nucleus removal versus irrigating wire vectis-assisted nucleus removal. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomised interventional study was conducted at the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS) Rohtak, Haryana, India. The study duration was three years, from May 2018 to May 2021. A total of 250 patients with uncomplicated senile cataract over 40 years of age, with nuclear sclerosis of grade 2 or higher and “with the rule” astigmatism, were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into Group A and Group B (125 each), who underwent MSICS using visco-expression (Group A) versus irrigating wire vectis-assisted (Group B) nucleus removal. Visual Acuity (VA), keratometry, astigmatism, pachymetry, and Endothelial Cell Density (ECD) were recorded in every patient preoperatively and postoperatively on day 1 and day 40. The Shapiro-wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data, and student’s t-test was performed to identify significant differences in continuous factors between the two groups. Chi-square test was used to find the association between factors and techniques, with a p-value <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of the patients was 68.5±9.4 years (range 52-89 years) with a significant male preponderance. The mean LogMAR visual acuity on Postoperative Day (POD)-1 was 0.3±0.1 for Group A, while for Group B, it was 0.5±0.2, showing a statistically significant difference (p=0.004). However, on day 40, visual acuity was comparable in both groups, with Group A (0.1±0.2) and Group B (0.1±0.1), and no significant difference (p=0.09). On POD-1, the percentage change in Endothelial Cell Density (ECD) was 4.2% in Group A and 10.6% in Group B, with a statistically significant difference (p=0.0017). On day 40, it was 2.1% and 4.8% in Group A and Group B, respectively, also showing a statistically significant difference (p=0.003). On postoperative day 40, the mean Surgically Induced Astigmatism (SIA) in Group A and Group B was 0.67±0.24 and 0.74±0.41, respectively, but this difference was statistically insignificant (p=0.074). Intra and postoperative complications such as hyphema, iridodialysis, and corneal oedema were more common in Group B than Group A. Conclusion: The study concludes that there was a statistically significant endothelial cell loss in the irrigating wire vectisassisted nucleus delivery method compared to the viscoexpression of the nucleus during MSICS. The present method also showed delayed visual rehabilitation and a higher risk of intra and postoperative complications. Therefore, viscoexpression of the nucleus should be the preferred method of nucleus delivery in every MSICS where feasible.