Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

<div><p>Background</p><p>We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) and standard coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS).</p><p>Methods</p><p>The outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting C-MICS and C-SICS were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library in May 2015. The final meta-analysis was conducted on the following intraoperative and postoperative outcomes: ultrasound time (UST), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), balanced salt solution use (BSS use), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), mean surgery time, endothelial cell loss percentage (ECL%), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), increased central corneal thickness (CCT), laser flare photometry values and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA).</p><p>Results</p><p>A total of 15 RCTs, involving 1136 eyes, were included in the final meta-analysis. No significant between-group differences were detected in EPT, BSS use, CDE, BCVA, laser flare photometry values or increased CCT. However, the C-MICS group showed less SIA (at postoperative day 7: <i>p</i><0.01; at postoperative day 30 or more: <i>p</i><0.01) and greater ECL% (at postoperative day 60 or more: <i>p</i><0.01), whereas the C-SICS group required a shorter UST (<i>p</i><0.01).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The present meta-analysis suggested that the C-MICS technique was more advantageous than C-SICS in terms of SIA, but C-MICS required a longer UST and induced a higher ECL%. Further studies should be done to confirm our results.</p></div