Open Access, Peer-reviewed
pISSN 2233-7385
eISSN 2233-7393
    Chonnam Med J. 2010 Apr;46(1):56-61. Korean.
    Published online Apr 15, 2010.
    https://doi.org/10.4068/cmj.2010.46.1.56
    Copyright © 2010 Chonnam National University Medical School
    Original Article

    Comparison of Clinical Results between 2.2 mm MCCS and 2.8 mm SICS

    Jung-Won Park, Jae-Kap Cho,1 Hyeon-Ju Nah,2 Yeoung-Geol Park and Kyung-Chul Yoon
      • Department of Ophthalmology, Chonnam National University Medical School and Hospital, Gwangju, Korea.
      • 1Department of Ophthalmology, Seonam University College of Medicine, Namwon, Korea.
      • 2Department of Nursing, Dongkang College, Gwangju, Korea.
    • Corresponding Author (Email: kcyoon@chonnam.ac.kr )
    Received January 15, 2010; Accepted February 04, 2010.

    Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results between 2.2 mm micro-coaxial cataract surgery (MCCS) and 2.8 mm small incision cataract surgery (SICS). Seventy-five patients (75 eyes) were divided into the MCCS (33 eyes) and SICS (42 eyes) groups. AcrySof IQ intraocular lenses were implanted into all patients. Effective phacoemulsification time, CDE (cumulative dissipated energy), and total amount of balanced salt solution (BSS) during cataract surgery were measured in the two groups. Visual acuity, spherical equivalent, intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell count, corneal thickness, and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) were analyzed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences in effective phacoemulsification time, CDE, amount of BSS, visual acuity, spherical equivalent, IOP, endothelial cell count and corneal thickness, or SIA between the two groups. In conclusion, the clinical results of the 2.2 mm MCCS group and 2.8 mm SICS group revealed no significant differences.

    Keywords
    Astigmatism; Cataract; Lenses, Intraocular

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Postoperative changes in corneal thickness (µm) in microcoaxial and small incision cataract surgery.

    Fig. 2
    Postoperative changes in corneal endothelial cell count (cell/mm2) in microcoaxial and small incision cataract surgery.

    Fig. 3
    Postoperative changes in surgically induced astigmatism (Diopter) in microcoaxial and small incision cataract surgery.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Characteristics of patients who underwent cataract surgery using MICS and SICS

    Table 2
    Comparision of surgical parameters between the MCCS and SCIS groups

    Table 3
    Postoperative changes of spherical equivalent (Diopter)

    References

      1. Shepherd JR. Induced astigmatixm in small incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989;15:85–88.
      1. Linebarger EJ, Hardten DR, Shah GK, Lindstrom RL. Phacoemulsification and modern cataract surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;44:123–147.
      1. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y. Ultrasonic phacoemulsification using 1.4 mm incision: clinical results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:81–86.
      1. Martin RG, Snaders DR, Miller JD, Cox CC 3rd, Ballew C. Effect of cataract wound incision size on acute changes in corneal topography. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19 Suppl:170–177.
      1. Lundström M. Endophtahlmitis and incision construction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006;17:68–71.
      1. Herretes S, Stark WJ, Pirouzmanesh A, Reyes JM, Mcdonnel PJ, Behrens A. Inflow of ocular surgace fluid into the anterior chamber after phacoemulsification through sutureless corneal cataract wounds. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:737–740.
      1. Taban M, Sarayba MA, Ignacio TS, Behrens A, Mcdonnell PJ. Ingress of india ink into the anterior chamber through sutureless clear corneal cataract wounds. Arch Ophthalmol 2005;123:643–648.
      1. Alió J, Rodríquez-Prats JL, Galai A, Ramzy M. Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthamol 2005;112:1997–2003.
      1. Stratas BA. Clear corneal paracentesis: a case of chronic wound leakage in a patient having bimanual phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1075.
      1. Weikert MP. Update on bimanual microincisional cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006;17:62–67.
      1. Cavallini GM, Campi L, Masini C, Pelloni S, Pupino A. Bimanual microphacoemulsification vs coaxial miniphacoemulsification: prospective study. J Cataract Refractive Surg 2007;33:387–392.
      1. Berdahl JP, DeStafeno JJ, Kim T. Corneal wound architecture and integrity after phacoemulsification evaluation of coaxial, microincision coaxial, and microincision bimanual techniques. J Cataract Refractive Surg 2007;33:510–515.
      1. Holladay JT, Cravy TV, Koch DD. Calculating the surgically induced refractive change following ocular surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1992;18:429–443.
      1. Kahraman G, Amon M, Franz C, Prinz A, Abela-Formanek C. Intraindividual comparison of surgical trauma after bimanual microincision and conventional small-incision coaxial phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:618–622.
      1. Lee DS, Joo CK. Effect of incision length on visual recovery and astigmatism in no-suture cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1992;33:470–475.
      1. Hu YJ, Jo CK. Surgicallly induced astigmatism after temporal clear corneal incision in sutureless cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 1998;39:2622–2627.
      1. Agarwal A, Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Narang P, Narang S. Phakonit: phacoemulsification through 0.9 mm corneal incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:1548–1552.
      1. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y. Feasibility of ultrasound cataract surgery with a 1.4 mm incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:934–940.
      1. Elkady B, Piñero D, Alió JL. Corneal incision quality: Microincision cataract surgery versus microcoaxial phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:466–474.
      1. Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:233–239.
      1. Dosso AA, Cottet L, Burgener ND, Di Nardo S. Outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery versus conventional coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:284–288.
      1. Masket S, Wang L, Belani S. Induced astigmatism with 2.2- and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg 2009;25:21–24.
      1. Moon SC, Mohamed T, Fine IH. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatisms after clear corneal incisions of different sizes. Korean J Ophthalmol 2007;21:1–5.
      1. Lee KM, Kwon HG, Joo CK. Microcoaxial cataract surgery outcomes: Comparison of 1.8 mm system and 2.2 mm system. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:874–880.
      1. Choi JA, Chung SK, Kim HS. Comparative study of microcoaxial cataract surgery and coventinoal cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2008;49:904–910.
      1. Jee DH, Lee PY, Joo CK. The comparision of astigmatism according to the incision size in cataract operation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2003;44:594–598.
    MeSH Terms
    Astigmatism
    Cataract
    Endothelial Cells
    Humans
    Intraocular Pressure
    Lenses, Intraocular
    Phacoemulsification
    Visual Acuity
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    PERMALINK