M J Capella1, E Barraquer. 1. Centro de Oftalmología Barraquer, Barcelona, España. mjcapella@barraquer.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse and quantitatively compare the outcomes of microincisional cataract surgery (CCMIC) with those of conventional phacoemulsification, evaluating the induced astigmatism, endothelial cell count, corneal thickness and foveal thickness in the pre- and postoperative period. METHODS: Prospective and randomised study, including 74 eyes of 37 patients with a mean age of 72.97±7.55 years. All of them underwent conventional phacoemulsification in one eye and CCMIC in the other eye. The evaluated parameters were refractive and topographic astigmatism, endothelial cell count, corneal thickness and foveal thickness, which were measured preoperatively and at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The variations between pre- and postoperative parameters showed no statistically significant differences between the two surgical procedures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:CCMIC is an effective and safe technique that offers an excellent alternative for cataract surgery, with a smaller incision and postoperative outcomes comparable to the standard technique. Prospective studies with more patients and longer follow-ups are needed to establish if there really are statistically significant and clinically relevant differences between both techniques.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To analyse and quantitatively compare the outcomes of microincisional cataract surgery (CCMIC) with those of conventional phacoemulsification, evaluating the induced astigmatism, endothelial cell count, corneal thickness and foveal thickness in the pre- and postoperative period. METHODS: Prospective and randomised study, including 74 eyes of 37 patients with a mean age of 72.97±7.55 years. All of them underwent conventional phacoemulsification in one eye and CCMIC in the other eye. The evaluated parameters were refractive and topographic astigmatism, endothelial cell count, corneal thickness and foveal thickness, which were measured preoperatively and at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: The variations between pre- and postoperative parameters showed no statistically significant differences between the two surgical procedures (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CCMIC is an effective and safe technique that offers an excellent alternative for cataract surgery, with a smaller incision and postoperative outcomes comparable to the standard technique. Prospective studies with more patients and longer follow-ups are needed to establish if there really are statistically significant and clinically relevant differences between both techniques.