17 research outputs found

    Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract is the opacification of the lens, which occurs as a result of denaturation of lens proteins. Age-related cataract remains the leading cause of blindness globally, except in the most developed countries. A key question is what is the best way of removing the lens, especially in lower income settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare two different techniques of lens removal in cataract surgery: manual small incision surgery (MSICS) and extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to September 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2014), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), (January 1990 to September 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. Participants in the trials were people with age-related cataract. We included trials where MSICS with a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implant was compared to ECCE with a posterior chamber IOL implant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected independently by two authors. We aimed to collect data on presenting visual acuity 6/12 or better and best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 at three months and one year after surgery. Other outcomes included intraoperative complications, long-term complications (one year or more after surgery), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. There were not enough data available from the included trials to perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials randomly allocating people with age-related cataract to MSICS or ECCE were included in this review (n = 953 participants). Two trials were conducted in India and one in Nepal. Trial methods, such as random allocation and allocation concealment, were not clearly described; in only one trial was an effort made to mask outcome assessors. The three studies reported follow-up six to eight weeks after surgery. In two studies, more participants in the MSICS groups achieved unaided visual acuity of 6/12 or 6/18 or better compared to the ECCE group, but overall not more than 50% of people achieved good functional vision in the two studies. 10/806 (1.2%) of people enrolled in two trials had a poor outcome after surgery (best-corrected vision less than 6/60) with no evidence of difference in risk between the two techniques (risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 5.55). Surgically induced astigmatism was more common with the ECCE procedure than MSICS in the two trials that reported this outcome. In one study there were more intra- and postoperative complications in the MSICS group. One study reported that the costs of the two procedures were similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no other studies from other countries other than India and Nepal and there are insufficient data on cost-effectiveness of each procedure. Better evidence is needed before any change may be implemented. Future studies need to have longer-term follow-up and be conducted to minimize biases revealed in this review with a larger sample size to allow examination of adverse events

    Interventions for themanagement of CMV-associated anterior segment inflammation

    No full text
    10.1002/14651858.CD011908.pub2COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS2017

    Prophylactic Vancomycin Drops Reduce the Severity of Early Bacterial Keratitis in Keratoprosthesis

    No full text
    Artificial cornea transplantation, keratoprosthesis, improves vision for patients at high risk of failure with human cadaveric cornea. However, post-operative infection can cause visual loss and implant extrusion in 3.2–17% of eyes. Long-term vancomycin drops are recommended following keratoprosthesis to prevent bacterial keratitis. Evidence, though, in support of this practice is poor. We investigated whether prophylactic vancomycin drops prevented bacterial keratitis in an animal keratoprosthesis model. inoculation into the cornea at 7–12 days post-implantation and were sacrificed at predetermined time-points. Prophylactic and non-prophylactic groups were compared with slit-lamp photography (SLP), anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), and histology, immunohistochemistry and bacterial quantification of excised corneas. Corneal vancomycin pharmacokinetics were studied in 8 additional rabbits. only after 16 days of vancomycin drops. Two of 3 rabbits still developed infection despite bacterial inoculation after 16 days of prophylactic drops. keratitis. Patients should continue to be counselled regarding the risk of infection following keratoprosthesis

    Histology.

    No full text
    <p>Haematoxylin and eosin stained corneal sections, comparing vancomycin prophylaxis to non-prophylaxis cases. A. Healthy cornea. B (day 2, prophylaxis). A rich infiltration of neutrophils is present throughout the stroma. The epithelial and endothelial surfaces are irregular due to stromal oedema. C (day 2, non-prophylaxis). The stroma appears more oedematous than in image B. A rich neutrophilic infiltration is also present, mostly in the pocket, but the neutrophils appear to be less densely arranged in the stroma than in image B, most likely reflecting the presence of more oedema. D (day 4, prophylaxis). The stroma is more oedematous than in image B and the Descemets membrane is detached, reflecting greater levels of infection. The neutrophilic infiltration is not as dense as in image B, most likely due to more stromal oedema. E (day 4, non-prophylaxis). The stroma appears similarly oedematous to that in image D and slightly richer in neutrophilic infiltration. (Scale bar 100μm)</p

    Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.

    No full text
    <p>Corneal thickness between implant and anterior corneal surface was measured at 5 locations before (A) and after (B) bacterial inoculation.</p

    Serial slit-lamp photography for clinical grading.

    No full text
    <p>A. A quiet eye with a clear cornea and the titanium keratoprosthesis in-situ before bacterial inoculation. B. On day 1 following inoculation, the conjunctiva is injected and the cornea oedematous with early infiltration. C. On day 2, moderate corneal infiltration has developed. D. On day 4, severe corneal infiltration is present.</p

    Corneal thickness.

    No full text
    <p>Comparison of corneal thickness between the prophylactic and non-prophylactic group. (error bars represent ± 1 standard error of mean)</p
    corecore