The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0661-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Incision size plays a critical role in the efficacy of cataract surgery, but the available evidence on ideal incision size is inconsistent. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of coaxial microincisional phacoemulsification surgery (MICS) compared with that of standard-incision phacoemulsification surgery (SICS) in patients with age-related cataracts.
The Cochrane Library (Wiley Online Library), PubMed, Medline, National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were searched to identify reports of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MICS to SICS for the treatment of age-related cataracts. The outcomes of interest included surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell count (ECC), endothelial cell count loss (ECC Loss %), and average ultrasonic energy (AVE).
Eleven RCT studies were included in this meta-analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed in EPT (Z = 1.29, P > 0.05), CCT (1 day: Z = 1.37, P > 0.05; 7 days: Z = 0.75, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 0.38, P > 0.05; 90 days: Z = 0.29, P > 0.05), ECC (7 days: Z = 1.13, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 1.42, P > 0.05) or ECC Loss % (7 days: Z = 0.24, P > 0.05; 30 days: Z = 0.06, P > 0.05; 90 days: Z = 0.10, P > 0.05) between MICS and SICS. However, statistically significant differences were found in AVE (Z = 4.19, P < 0.0001) and SIA (1 day: Z = 10.33, P < 0.00001; 7 days: Z = 10.71, P < 0.00001; 30 days: Z = 10.95, P < 0.00001; 90 days: Z = 2.21,- P < 0.01) between MICS and SICS.
Compared with SICS, MICS can reduce short-term and long-term SIA, but it does not differ in safety outcomes or in the time required for surgery.
Lou S, Yuan Y. Epidemiology investigation of the senile cataract. Journal of nanchang university (medical edition). 2012;52(6):98–101.
Zhao L, Yan H. Advantages and disadvantages of microincision cataract surgery. Int J Ophthalmol. 2012;12(12):2306–8.
Can I, Takmaz T, Yildiz Y, et al. Coaxial, microcoaxial, and biaxial microincision cataract surgery: prospective comparative study. Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(5):740–6. CrossRef
Kahraman G, Amon M, Franz C, et al. Intraindividual comparison of surgical trauma after bimanual microincision and conventional small-incision coaxial phacoemulsification. Catarac Refract Surg. 2007;33:618–22. CrossRef
Dosso AA, Cottet L, Burgener ND, Di Nardo S. Outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery versus conventional cataract surgery. Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(2):284–8. CrossRef
Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G, Giansanti F, Menchini U. Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: microincision versus standard technique. Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(8):1351–4. CrossRef
Liu Y. Update on Microincisional Phacoemulsification. Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University (Medical Sciences). 2010;31(6):731–5.
Lan J, Guo H, Cui Y, et al. Comparative study on clinical effects of 1.8mm coaxial micro-incision and 3.0 mm standard incision in cataract phacoemulsification surgery. Recent Advin Ophthalmol. 2013;33(10):954–7.
Chen Y, Su L, Tian F, et al. Clinical application of 2.2 mm micro-incision phacoemulsification in cataract surgery. Recent Adv Ophthalmol. 2012;32(3):260–6.
Yao K, Wang W, Wu W, et al. Clinical evaluation on the coaxial 1.8 mm microincision cataract surgery. Chinese J Ophthalmol. 2011;47(10):525–8.
Tan L, Ye J. Phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm coaxial microincision. Third Military Medical University J. 2012;34(11):1111–3.
Zhang J, Chen J, Huang B, et al. Effect of 1.8mm coaxial micro-ncision cataract phacoemulsification on corneal astigmatism. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;14(4):670–2.
Qin X, Yang X, Quan C, et al. Comparative study of 2.2 mm coaxiaI micro incision phacoemulsification and traditional phacoemulsification in cataract operation. Chin J Mod Drug Appl. 2014;8(3):11–2.
Li B. Clinical evaluation on 2.2 mm micro-incision cataract surgery. Recent Advances in Ophthalmology. 2014;34(6):564–6.
Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus smallincision coaxial cataract surgery. Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(2):233–9. CrossRef
Berdahl JP, DeStafeno JJ, Kim T. Corneal wound architecture and integrity after phacoemulsification: evaluation of coaxial microincision coaxial,and microincision bimanual techniques. Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(3):510–5. CrossRef
Soscia W, Howard JG, Olson RJ. Bimanual phacoemulsification through 2 stab incisions:a wound temperature study. Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(6):1039–43. CrossRef
Zhong J, Shao D, Liu P, et al. Effect of different corneal incisions on corneal refraction after phacoemulsification and foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. Recent Adv Ophthalmol. 2004;24(4):461–3.
Masket S, Belani S. Proper wound construction to prevent short-term ocular hypotony after clear corneal incision cataract surgery. Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(3):383–6. CrossRef
- Comparison of efficacy between coaxial microincision and standard-incision phacoemulsification in patients with age-related cataracts: a meta-analysis
- BioMed Central