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.
I very much appreciate the humanitarian services provided in my stead by this journal/publisher.
It exhibits total absence of editorial impertinence. As an Author, I have been guided to have a fruitful experience.
The editorial care is highly commendable.
Chrysanthus Chukwuma
We really appreciate and thanks the full waiver you provide for our article. We happy to publish our paper in your journal. Thank you very much for your good support and services.
Ali Abusafia
I do appreciate for your service including submission, analysis, review, editorial and publishing process. I believe these esteemed journal enlighten the science with its high-quality personel.
Bora Uysal
''Co-operation of Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research journal is appreciable. I'm impressed at the promptness of the publishing staff and the professionalism displayed. Thank you very much for your support, help and encouragement.''
Anıl Gokce
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.
Achraf elbakkaly
“Mobile apps and wearable technology are becoming ubiquitous in our environment. Their integration with healthcare delivery is just beginning to take shape. The early results are promising and the possibilities great."
BS, PharmD., MBA, CPHIMS, FHIMSS, Adjunct Professor, Global Healthcare Management, MCPHS University, Chief Strategy Offi cer, MedicaSoft, Senior Advisor, National Health IT (NHIT) Collaborative for Underserved, New York HIMSS, National Liaison, Health 2.0 Boston, Past Chair, Chair Innovation, USA
Helen Figge
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
Many thanks for publishing my article in your great journal and the friendly and hassle-free publication process, the constructive peer-review, the regular feedback system, and the Quick response to any queries.
Azab Elsayed Azab
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
Archna Dhasmana
Service and process were excellent as was the “look” of the article when published.
If you are already a member of our network and need to keep track of any developments regarding a question you have already submitted, click "take me to my Query."