We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Bimanual microincision versus standard coaxial small-incision cataract surgery: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
European Journal of Ophthalmology 2015 March
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.
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
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
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