Comparison of Clinical Bimanual Microincisional and Conventional Coaxial Cataract Surgeries

1
Comparison of Clinical Bimanual Microincisional
and Conventional Coaxial Cataract Surgeries

• Department of Ophthalmology,
• Keio University School of Medicine,Tokyo, Japan
• Kazuno Negishi, MD, Naoki Terauchi, MD, Megumi
  Saiki, CO,
• Daijiro Kurosaka, MD, Kazuo Tsubota, MD
• All authors have no financial interest related to
  the presented poster.

2
Purpose

• To compare the early clinical results of
• microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) with
  those of coaxial cataract surgery (CACS)

3
Patients

• Cataract patients who have no other ocular and
  systemic complications
• MICS10 eyes of 10 patients (mean age, 71.5
  years range, 5284)
• CACS11 eyes of 10 patients (mean age, 69.5
  years range, 5578)
• There were no significant differences in age and
  degree of nucleus sclerosis (Emery-Little)
  between the two groups

4
Clinical Examinations
5
Surgical Methods
6
Surgical Data
7
Visual Acuity
log MAR


p lt 0.05 by paired t test
No significant difference between the two groups
8
Decreased Corneal Endothelial Density (1 month
post-op)
()
MICS
CACS
No significant difference between the two groups
9
Central Corneal Thickness
(µm)
No significant difference between the two groups
10
Anterior Chamber Flare
photon count / msec

p lt 0.05 by paired t test

No significant difference between the two groups
11
Foveal Thickness
(µm)
No significant difference between the two groups
12
Surgically Induced Astigmatism (Cravys Method)
(D)
No significant difference between the two groups
13
Higher Order Aberrations (root mean square of
3rd to 6th order)
(µm)
No significant difference between the two groups
14
Summary of the Results

• The two groups (MICS and CACS) showed comparable
  early recovery of visual acuity after surgery.
• There were no significant differences between the
  two groups in central corneal thickness and
  foveal thickness, although the ultrasound time is
  longer in MICS than in CACS.
• There was no significant difference in anterior
  chamber flare between the two groups.
• There was no significant difference in surgically
  induced astigmatism between the two groups for
  the incision sizes in this study.

15
Previous reports
There are few detailed published reports on the
clinical results of MICS.

• The decrease in corneal endothelial cell density
  did not differ significantly from conventional
  phacoemulsification 3 months after surgery.
• (Tsuneoka et al. J Cataract Refract Surg
  2002288186)
• The surgically induced astigmatism was
  significantly smaller than with conventional
  phacoemulsification 3 months after surgery.
• (Tsuneoka et al. J Cataract Refract Surg
  2002288186)

16
Conclusions

• Our results indicated that MICS is as safe as
  CACS.
• If the safety of MICS is comparable to CACS, MICS
  would be superior to CACS in wound strength and
  wound healing.