Comparison of safety and effectiveness between phacoemulsification and suture less small incision procedures in Cataract surgery

Asma Aftab, Imran Khan, Yaseen Lodhi, Marrium Shafi, Saad Rauf Khan
{"title":"Comparison of safety and effectiveness between phacoemulsification and suture less small incision procedures in Cataract surgery","authors":"Asma Aftab, Imran Khan, Yaseen Lodhi, Marrium Shafi, Saad Rauf Khan","doi":"10.37723/jumdc.v14i3.819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Cataract is major cause of preventable blindness, worldwide. Phacoemulsification and manual small incision are most common surgical methods of cataract. The objective of our study was to compare surgical outcomes and complications in phacoemulsification (Phaco) and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) patients \nMETHODOLOGY: A Prospective Observational study was conducted at Ophthalmology department of POF Hospital Wah Cantt, Pakistan. Study duration was 6 months (January 2020-June 2020). We calculated sample size of 30 cataract patients. Selection of cataract patients in OPD was done through non probability consecutive sampling technique. Afterwards, they were divided randomly into two different groups using lottery method; Group A patients cataract extraction was done with Phacoemulsification while in group B patients cataract extraction was done with small incision cataract surgery. Patients were followed for 5 weeks. Fisher-exact test and independent and paired T-test was applied to get statistically significant results. P value ≤0.05 was considered significant. \nRESULTS: Total 30 patients were included in study. There were 19(64.5%) male and 11(35.5%) female.  Mean age of patients was 48.3±7.5SD. There was a significant change in pre and post operative visual acuity in both groups (Group A p=0.000 and Group B p=0.000). MSICS showed high surgery duration as compared to phacoemulsification (29.6±1.5 vs 22.2±2.1, p=0.000). \nCONCLUSION: Phacoemulsification and Manual small incision cataract surgery are safe and clinically effective surgical techniques that did not show any difference in surgical outcomes. However, Phacoemulsification is associated with less post-operative complications as compared to MSICS.","PeriodicalId":178216,"journal":{"name":"Journal of University Medical & Dental College","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of University Medical & Dental College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37723/jumdc.v14i3.819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Cataract is major cause of preventable blindness, worldwide. Phacoemulsification and manual small incision are most common surgical methods of cataract. The objective of our study was to compare surgical outcomes and complications in phacoemulsification (Phaco) and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) patients METHODOLOGY: A Prospective Observational study was conducted at Ophthalmology department of POF Hospital Wah Cantt, Pakistan. Study duration was 6 months (January 2020-June 2020). We calculated sample size of 30 cataract patients. Selection of cataract patients in OPD was done through non probability consecutive sampling technique. Afterwards, they were divided randomly into two different groups using lottery method; Group A patients cataract extraction was done with Phacoemulsification while in group B patients cataract extraction was done with small incision cataract surgery. Patients were followed for 5 weeks. Fisher-exact test and independent and paired T-test was applied to get statistically significant results. P value ≤0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Total 30 patients were included in study. There were 19(64.5%) male and 11(35.5%) female.  Mean age of patients was 48.3±7.5SD. There was a significant change in pre and post operative visual acuity in both groups (Group A p=0.000 and Group B p=0.000). MSICS showed high surgery duration as compared to phacoemulsification (29.6±1.5 vs 22.2±2.1, p=0.000). CONCLUSION: Phacoemulsification and Manual small incision cataract surgery are safe and clinically effective surgical techniques that did not show any difference in surgical outcomes. However, Phacoemulsification is associated with less post-operative complications as compared to MSICS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
白内障超声乳化术与无缝合小切口手术的安全性和有效性比较
背景与目的:白内障是世界范围内可预防性失明的主要原因。超声乳化术和人工小切口是治疗白内障最常用的手术方法。本研究的目的是比较超声乳化术(Phaco)和人工小切口白内障手术(msic)患者的手术效果和并发症。方法:在巴基斯坦Wah Cantt POF医院眼科进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。研究时间为6个月(2020年1月- 2020年6月)。我们计算了30例白内障患者的样本量。采用非概率连续抽样技术对白内障患者进行选择。之后,采用摇号法将他们随机分为两组;A组患者行超声乳化术,B组患者行小切口白内障手术。随访5周。采用fisher精确检验和独立配对t检验,结果具有统计学意义。P值≤0.05为显著性。结果:共纳入30例患者。男性19例(64.5%),女性11例(35.5%)。患者平均年龄48.3±7.5SD。两组患者术前、术后视力差异均有统计学意义(a组p=0.000, B组p=0.000)。与超声乳化术相比,mscs的手术时间更长(29.6±1.5 vs 22.2±2.1,p=0.000)。结论:超声乳化术与人工小切口白内障手术是一种安全有效的手术方法,手术效果无明显差异。然而,与mscs相比,超声乳化术的术后并发症较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Online Teaching and its challenges faced by Anatomists in Pakistan: A post-pandemic Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception regarding antibiotic use and its associated resistance among the general public in Lahore, Pakistan. Pause procedure to enhance learning during the lectures in Medical Colleges Impact of transurethral resection of the prostate on erectile function in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients: a descriptive study at a tertiary care hospital Multidisciplinary care plan and adherence to clinical practice guidelines is needed to improve breast cancer outcome in Pakistan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1