Aim: To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of cataract surgery with manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) to those of extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) in Lome.
Patients and Methods: A prospective study involved two groups of patients who underwent ECCE (group 1) and MSICS (group 2) by the same surgeon in the same conditions in different periods. Complications and visual results to the 45th postoperative day were compared.
Results: At the 45th postoperative day, 60% of operated eyes of the ECCE group (G1) and 83.9% in the group of MSICS (G2) had uncorrected visual acuity greater than or equal to 3/10. Through the pinhole, these proportions increased to 73.3% for G1 and 92.2% for G2. Visual acuity was less than 1/10 in 4.4% for G1 and 1.1% for G2. The vitreous loss was observed in proportions of 3.8% for G1 and 3.3% for G2. During follow-up, the three main early postoperative complications were inflammation (13.9%), corneal edema (13.3%), and the pigment dispersion (7.2%) in G1 and corneal edema (9.4%), pigment dispersion (8.3%) and hypertonia (6.6%) in G 2.
Conclusion: Two cataract extraction techniques offer the same level of safety in intraoperative period. However, MSICS has certain advantages over the ECCE and would be an alternative technique in developing countries.
Background: In developing countries, manual small incision cataract surgery is a better alternative and less expensive in comparison to phacoemulsification and thus the incision is an important factor causing high rates of postoperative astigmatism resulting into poor visual outcome. Thus, modifications to the site of the incision is needed to reduce the pre-existing astigmatism and also to prevent postoperative astigmatism. Modification to superotemporal incision relieves pre-existing astigmatism majorly due to its characteristic of neutralizing against-the-rule astigmatism, which is more prevalent among elderly population and thus improves the visual outcome.Aims: To study the incidence, amount and type of surgically induced astigmatism in superior and superotemporal scleral incision in manual SICS.Methodology: It is a randomized, comparative clinical study done on 100 patients attending the OPD of Ophthalmology at a tertiary care hospital, with senile cataract within a period of one year and underwent manual SICS. 50 of them chosen randomly for superior incision and rest 50 with superotemporal incision. MSICS with PCIOL implantation were performed through unsutured 6.5 mm scleral incision in all. Patients were examined post-operatively on 1st day, 7th day, 2nd week and 4th week and astigmatism was evaluated and compared in both groups.Results: It is seen that on postoperative follow up on 4th week, 77.78% of the patients with ATR astigmatism who underwent superior incision had increased astigmatism whereas, only 13.63% of the patients with ATR astigmatism who underwent supero-temporal incision, had increased astigmatism but 81.82% had decreased ATR astigmatism. However, 77.78% of the patients with preoperative WTR astigmatism who underwent supero-temporal incision, had increased astigmatism, whereas 44.45% of the patients with WTR astigmatism preoperatively, had increased astigmatism in contrast to 50% had decreased amount of astigmatism. It is also seen that the supero-temporal incision group had more number of patients (78%) with visual acuity better than 6/9 at 4th postoperative week than superior incision group (42%).Conclusion: This study concludes that superior incision cause more ATR astigmatism postoperatively whereas superotemporal incision causes lower magnitude of WTR astigmatism, which is advantageous for the elderly. Besides superotemporal incision provides better and early visual acuity postoperatively.
We really appreciate your efforts towards our article, the professional way you handle our request for exemption from charges.
It was a great honor for us to publish in your magazine.
Your journal co-operation is very appreciable and motivational. I am really thankful to your journal and team members for the motivation and collaboration to publish my work.
Assistant Professor, UCLAS Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, India
I am to express my view that Heighten Science Publications are reliable quick even after peer review process. I hope and wish the publications will go a long way in disseminating science to many interested in scientific research.
College of Fisheries, CAU(I), Tripura, India
Ajit Kumar Roy
I would like to thank JPRA for taking this decision. I understand the effort it represents for you. I'm truly happy to have the paper published in JPRA. And I'll certainly consider JPRA for my next publications as I was satisfied of the service provided, the efficiency and promptness of the interactions we had.
Thanks you and your colleague for the great help for our publication. You always provide prompt responses and high quality of service. I am so happy to have you working with me.
Diana (Ding) Dai
Your services are very good
Chukwuka Ireju Onyinye
Your big support from researchers around the world is the best appreciation from your scientific teams. We believe that there should be no barrier in science and you make it real and this motto come true.
Publishing with the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology was a rewarding experience as review process was thorough and brisk. Their visibility online is second to none as their published articles appear in all search engines. I will encourage researchers to publish with them.
University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital, Nigeria
Dr. Elizabeth A Awoyesuku
Thank you very much. I think the review process and all of what concerns the administration of the publication concerning our paper has been excellent. The nice and quick answers have been very good I think.
You are such a nice person. Your journal co-operation is very appreciable and motivational.
Department of Biotechnology, Uttaranchal college of Applied and Life Sciences, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India