Display options
Cite
Bhargava R, Kumar P, Sharma SK, et al. Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery in patients with uveitis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(5):965-70doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20.
Bhargava, R., Kumar, P., Sharma, S. K., Kumar, M., & Kaur, A. (2015). Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery in patients with uveitis. International journal of ophthalmology, 8(5), 965-70. https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20
Bhargava, Rahul, et al. "Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery in patients with uveitis." International journal of ophthalmology vol. 8,5 (2015): 965-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20
Bhargava R, Kumar P, Sharma SK, Kumar M, Kaur A. Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery in patients with uveitis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):965-70. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26558210; PMCID: PMC4630994.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):965-70. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20. eCollection 2015.

Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery in patients with uveitis.

International journal of ophthalmology

Rahul Bhargava, Prachi Kumar, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Kumar, Avinash Kaur

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Laser Eye Clinic, Noida 201301, India.
  2. Department of Pathology, Santosh medical College and Hospital, Ghaziabad 201301, India.
  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Rotary Eye Hospital, Maranda, Palampur 176102, India.

PMID: 26558210 PMCID: PMC4630994 DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.20

Abstract

AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of phacoemulsification and small incision cataract surgery (SICS) in patients with uveitic cataract.

METHODS: In a prospective, randomized multi-centric study, consecutive patients with uveitic cataract were randomized to receive phacoemulsification or manual SICS by either of two surgeons well versed with both the techniques. A minimum inflammation free period of 3mo (defined as less than 5 cells per high power field in anterior chamber) was a pre-requisite for eligibility for surgery. Superior scleral tunnel incisions were used for both techniques. Improvement in visual acuity post-operatively was the primary outcome measure and the rate of post-operative complications and surgical time were secondary outcome measures, respectively. Means of groups were compared using t-tests. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used when there were more than two groups. Chi-square tests were used for proportions. Kaplan Meyer survival analysis was done and means for survival time was estimated at 95% confidence interval (CI). A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six of 139 patients (90.6%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Seven patients were lost in follow up and another six excluded due to either follow-up less than six months (n=1) or inability implant an intraocular lens (IOL) because of insufficient capsular support following posterior capsule rupture (n=5). There was significant improvement in vision after both the procedures (paired t-test; P<0.001). On first postoperative day, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 20/63 or better in 31 (47%) patients in Phaco group and 26 (43.3%) patients in SICS group (P=0.384). The mean surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was 0.86±0.34 dioptres (D) in the phacoemulsification group and 1.16±0.28 D in SICS group. The difference between the groups was significant (t-test, P=0.002). At 6mo, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20/60 or better in 60 (90.9%) patients in Phaco group and 53 (88.3%) in the manual SICS group (P=0.478). The mean surgical time was significantly shorter in the manual SICS group (10.8±2.9 versus 13.2±2.6min) (P<0.001). Oral prednisolone, 1 mg/kg body weight was given 7d prior to surgery, continued post-operatively and tapered according to the inflammatory response over 4-6wk in patients with previously documented macular edema, recurrent uveitis, chronic anterior uveitis and intermediate uveitis. Rate of complications like macular edema (Chi-square, P=0.459), persistent uveitis (Chi-square, P=0.289) and posterior capsule opacification (Chi-square, P=0.474) were comparable between both the groups.

CONCLUSION: Manual SICS and phacoemulsification do not differ significantly in complication rates and final CDVA outcomes. However, manual SICS is significantly faster. It may be the preferred technique in settings where surgical volume is high and access to phacoemulsification is limited, such as in eye camps. It may also be the appropriate technique for uveitic cataract under such circumstances.

Keywords: corrected distance visual acuity; phacoemulsification; small incision cataract surgery; uncorrected distance visual acuity; uveitis

References

  1. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;11(5):369-80 - PubMed
  2. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001 May;131(5):620-5 - PubMed
  3. S Afr Med J. 2012 May 23;102(6):537-40 - PubMed
  4. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Aug;38(8):1360-9 - PubMed
  5. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;14(1):1-6 - PubMed
  6. Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):710-22 - PubMed
  7. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987 Feb 15;103(2):234-5 - PubMed
  8. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Jul;39(7):1002-7 - PubMed
  9. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007 Feb;33(2):305-9 - PubMed
  10. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013 Jun;61(6):284-90 - PubMed
  11. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 May-Jun;41(4):379-86 - PubMed
  12. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Dec;28(12):2096-108 - PubMed
  13. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jan;143(1):32-38 - PubMed
  14. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;50(2):103-7 - PubMed
  15. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2010 Jan;18(1):2-4 - PubMed
  16. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jan-Mar;21(1):77-82 - PubMed
  17. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Aug;36(8):1283-8 - PubMed
  18. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Nov;36(11):1849-54 - PubMed
  19. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan-Jun;4(1):108-13 - PubMed
  20. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010 Jan;21(1):10-4 - PubMed
  21. Am J Ophthalmol. 1959 May;47(5 Pt 2):155-70 - PubMed

Publication Types