Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of coaxial phacoemulsification with 2.2- and 2.8-mm clear corneal incisions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the intraoperative efficiency and postoperative visual outcome of coaxial phacoemulsification using 2.2- and 2.8-mm clear corneal incision coaxial phacoemulsification.

Setting

The study was conducted at Vardhaman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which is a tertiary health care centre.

Study design

This is a prospective, randomized, comparative interventional study.

Materials and methods

A total of 140 eyes of patients undergoing cataract surgery were enrolled according to the inclusion–exclusion criteria and randomly divided in two groups of 70 such that Group I—Patients underwent phacoemulsification through 2.8-mm clear corneal incision. Group II—Patients underwent phacoemulsification through 2.2-mm clear corneal incision.Postoperative assessment was done at 1 day, 1 and 6 weeks to note best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic examination, corneal topography, central corneal thickness and corneal endothelial cell count.

Statistics

1. Quantitative variables were compared using Mann–Whitney test and Wilcoxon ranked-sum test. 2. Qualitative variables were compared using Fisher’s exact test. p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There is steady trend in decrease in postoperative astigmatism with time, more so in 2.8 mm group; however, differences were not found to be statistically significant. 2.2 mm group had larger increase in CCT and ECC compared to 2.8 mm group which was not statistically significant (p = 0.296).

Conclusion

Reducing the incision size from 2.8 to 2.2 mm does not result in any significant reduction in the amount of surgically induced astigmatism. Also, both the incision sizes have similar intraoperative efficacy when compared in terms of postoperative decrease in corneal endothelial cell count and increase in central corneal thickness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alió J, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M (2005) Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology 112:1997–2003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chee SP, Bacsal K (2005) Endophthalmitis after microincision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1834–1835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elkady B, Alió J, Ortiz D, Montalbán R (2008) Corneal aberrations after microincision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yao K, Tang X, Ye P (2006) Corneal astigmatism, high order aberrations, and optical quality after cataract surgery: microincision versus small-incision. J Refract Surg 22:S1079–S1082

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang Y, Le Q, Yang J, Lu Y (2006) Changes in corneal astigmatism and high order aberrations after clear corneal tunnel phacoemulsification guided by corneal topography. J Refract Surg 22:S1083–S1088

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elkady B, Piñero D, Alió JL (2009) Corneal incision quality in microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) versus microcoaxial phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:466–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berdahl JP, DeStafeno JJ, Kim T (2007) Corneal wound architecture and integrity after phacoemulsification: evaluation of coaxial, microincision coaxial, and microincision bimanual techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:510–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Osher RH, Injev VP (2006) Thermal study of bare tips with various system parameters and incision sizes. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:867–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Behrens A, Stark WJ, Pratzer KA, McDonnell PJ (2008) Dynamics of small-incision clear cornea wounds after phacoemulsification surgery using optical coherence tomography in the early postoperative period. J Refract Surg 24:46–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alio JL, Rodriguez Prats JL, Galal A (2004) MICS: micro-incision cataract surgery. Highl Ophthalmol 1:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  11. Herretes S, Stark WJ, Pirouzmanesh A, Reyes JMG, McDonnell PJ, Behrens A (2005) Inflow of ocular surface fluid into the anterior chamber after phacoemulsification through sutureless corneal cataract wounds. Am J Ophthalmol 140:737–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Taban M, Sarayba MA, Ignacio TS, Behrens A, McDonnell PJ (2005) Ingress of india ink into the anterior chamber through sutureless clear corneal cataract wounds. Arch Ophthalmol 123:643–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y (2001) Feasibility of ultrasound cataract surgery with a 1.4 mm incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:934–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM et al (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. Arch Ophthalmol 111(6):831–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS (2002) New phacoemulsification technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg 28(6):1054–1060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guirao A, Tejedor J, Artal P (2004) Corneal aberrations before and after small-incision cataract surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:4312–4319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashemi H, Zandvakil N, Rahimi F, Beheshtnejad AH, Kheirkhah A (2010) Clinical comparison of conventional coaxial phacoemulsification and coaxial microincision phacoemulsification. Iran J Ophthal 22:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  18. Luo L, Lin H, He Minguuag et al (2012) Clinical evaluation of three incision size-dependent phacoemulsification systems. Am J Ophthalmol 153:831–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen PJ (1995) Prospective evaluation of surgically induced astigmatism and astigmatic keratotomy effects of various self-sealing small incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg 21(1):43–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Beltrame G, Salvetat ML, Chizzolini M, Driussi G (2001) Corneal topographic changes induced by different oblique cataract incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(5):720–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lesiewska-Junk H, Kałuzny J, Malukiewicz-Wiśniewska G (2002) Long-term evaluation of endothelial cell loss after phacoemulsification. Eur J Ophthalmol 12(1):30–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bourne WM, Nelson LR, Hodge DO (1994) Continued endothelial cell loss ten years after lens implantation. Ophthalmology 101(6):1014–1022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H (2009) Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:233–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berdahl JP, Jun B, DeStafeno JJ, Kim T (2008) Comparison of a torsional handpiece through microincision versus standard clear corneal cataract wounds. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(12):2091–2095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dosso AA, Cottet L, Burgener ND, Di Nardo S (2008) Outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery versus conventional coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(2):284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng H, Bates AK, Wood L et al (1988) Positive correlation of corneal thickness and endothelial cell loss. Serial measurements after cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 106:920–922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Glasser DB, Matsuda M, Ellis JG et al (1985) Effects of intraocular irrigating solutions on the corneal endothelium after in vivo anterior chamber irrigation. Am J Ophthalmol 99:321–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R et al (2003) Corneal endothelial cell protection with a dispersive viscoelastic material and a irrigating solution during phacoemulsification. Low-cost versus expensive combination. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:733–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, V.M.M.C & Safdarjung Hospital, Room No. 430 of Eye OPD, 4th Floor of OPD Building, Ansari Nagar, Ring Road, Newdelhi, 110029, India

    Harinder Singh Sethi, Komal Saluja & Mayuresh P. Naik

Authors
  1. Harinder Singh Sethi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Komal Saluja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mayuresh P. Naik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayuresh P. Naik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sethi, H.S., Saluja, K. & Naik, M.P. Comparative analysis of coaxial phacoemulsification with 2.2- and 2.8-mm clear corneal incisions. Int Ophthalmol 38, 215–222 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0450-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0450-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation