JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Bimanual microincision versus standard coaxial small-incision cataract surgery: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of bimanual microincision cataract surgery (B-MICS) through a 1.2- to 1.5-mm incision versus standard coaxial small-incision cataract surgery (C-SICS) through a 2.8- to 3.2-mm incision.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to identify randomized controlled clinical trials comparing B-MICS with standard C-SICS. Main outcome measures were mean surgical time, mean phacoemulsification power, effective phacoemulsification time, best-corrected visual acuity, surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), mean laser flare photometry values, mean endothelial cell loss, mean increased central corneal thickness, and intraoperative and postoperative complications.

RESULTS: We identified 14 randomized controlled clinical trials that included 1235 eyes diagnosed with cataracts. No statistically significant differences were detected between the 2 surgical procedures in terms of best-corrected visual acuity (p>0.05), SIA at postoperative 1 month (p = 0.09), laser flare photometry values (p = 0.38), mean endothelial cell loss (p = 0.53), increased central corneal thickness at postoperative 1 month (p = 0.64) or 3 months (p = 0.88), intraoperative complications (p = 0.68), and postoperative complications (p = 0.30); however, statistically significant differences were apparent for mean surgical time (p<0.00001), mean phacoemulsification power (p = 0.008), effective phacoemulsification time (p = 0.0009), SIA at postoperative 3 months (p = 0.02), and increased central corneal thickness at postoperative 1 day (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis shows that the 2 techniques have similar outcomes in terms of final visual acuity and complications. Bimanual MICS has the advantage of less SIA and phaco time whereas C-SICS has the advantage of quicker surgery and less likelihood of early-onset corneal edema.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app