African health sciences · 2022
Cataract surgery outcomes: comparison of the extracapsular cataract extraction and manual small incision cataract surgery techniques.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zitha Amukelani Jimmy, Rampersad Nishanee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Blindness and visual impairment are public health problems and constitute an important socio-economic burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding the outcomes of cataract surgery will improve our knowledge of risk factors for poor outcomes. Previous studies have focused exclusively on the phacoemulsification technique with limited attention to the extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) techniques.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cataract surgery outcomes between the ECCE and MSICS techniques.
METHODS: The study was an observational research design that used the LogMAR visual acuity (VA) chart, subjective refraction, slit lamp and ophthalmoscope to collect data. The participants were followed for a period of six-weeks post-surgery and outcomes were recorded. Data were presented using frequencies, percentages and means ± standard deviation.
RESULTS: The sample included 101 participants, with a mean age of 66.32 ± 15.99 years. Fifty and 51 participants had undergone the ECCE and MSICS techniques respectively. Overall, one-hundred participants had poor pre-surgery VA and subjective refractions were generally not possible due to the severity of cataracts present. The mean aided post-surgery VA was 0.31 LogMAR and 0.13 LogMAR in the ECCE and MSICS groups respectively (p < 0.001). The mean post-surgery refractive astigmatism was similar in the ECCE (-2.06 D) and MSICS (-1.80 D) groups (p = 0.110). The spherical equivalence was approximately -0.50 D higher in the MSICS group, but not statistically significant (p = 0.330). Approximately one out of every five participants (n = 21) had post-surgery ocular complications such as corneal opacity and haziness as well as posterior capsular absence.
CONCLUSIONS: The MSICS technique showed better post-surgery outcomes than the ECCE technique.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cataract surgery outcomes between the ECCE and MSICS techniques.
METHODS: The study was an observational research design that used the LogMAR visual acuity (VA) chart, subjective refraction, slit lamp and ophthalmoscope to collect data. The participants were followed for a period of six-weeks post-surgery and outcomes were recorded. Data were presented using frequencies, percentages and means ± standard deviation.
RESULTS: The sample included 101 participants, with a mean age of 66.32 ± 15.99 years. Fifty and 51 participants had undergone the ECCE and MSICS techniques respectively. Overall, one-hundred participants had poor pre-surgery VA and subjective refractions were generally not possible due to the severity of cataracts present. The mean aided post-surgery VA was 0.31 LogMAR and 0.13 LogMAR in the ECCE and MSICS groups respectively (p < 0.001). The mean post-surgery refractive astigmatism was similar in the ECCE (-2.06 D) and MSICS (-1.80 D) groups (p = 0.110). The spherical equivalence was approximately -0.50 D higher in the MSICS group, but not statistically significant (p = 0.330). Approximately one out of every five participants (n = 21) had post-surgery ocular complications such as corneal opacity and haziness as well as posterior capsular absence.
CONCLUSIONS: The MSICS technique showed better post-surgery outcomes than the ECCE technique.