Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 466-474, March 2009

Corneal incision quality: Microincision cataract surgery versus microcoaxial phacoemulsification

  • Bassam Elkady, MD
  • ,
  • David Piñero, PhD
  • ,
  • Jorge L. Alió, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Jorge L. Alió, MD, PhD, Research, Development, and Innovation Department, Vissum-Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante, Avenida de Denia s/n, Edificio Vissum, 03016 Alicante, Spain.

From Vissum-Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante (Elkady, Piñero, Alió), Departamento de Óptica, Farmacología y Anatomía (Piñero), Universidad de Alicante, Miguel Hernandez University (Alió), Alicante, Spain; Ain Shams University (Elkady), Cairo, Egypt

Received 30 September 2008; received in revised form 21 November 2008; accepted 23 November 2008.

Purpose

To use corneal optical coherence tomography (OCT) to evaluate the corneal incision quality in microincision cataract surgery (MICS) and microcoaxial phacoemulsification (microphaco).

Setting

Vissum-Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

Methods

Eyes with cataract grade II to IV were randomized into 2 groups for MICS or microphaco. Corneal incision quality was analyzed using corneal OCT on the first postoperative day, week, and month using a purpose-developed protocol and an objective model. Corneal OCT parameters were incision and corneal thickness, incision angle, epithelial and endothelial sealing, incision coaptation, and Descemet detachment. Visual, refractive, corneal topography, and aberrometric data were analyzed.

Results

There were no statistically significant between-group differences in corneal thickness and incision angle quality, geometrically assessed using corneal OCT. Corneal edema was less with MICS than with microphaco (44% versus 87%) (P=.002), as was corneal thickness in the 5.0 to 7.0 mm area (659.9 ± 56.7 μm versus 697 ± 80.6 μm) (P=.06), but only at 1 day. At 1 month, prolateness for an 8.0 mm area was maintained in the MICS group. Corneal root-mean-square astigmatism and residual were slightly better with MICS (0.6 ± 0.4 μm versus 0.9 ± 0.6 μm, P=.06; 0.6 ± 0.2 μm versus 0.7 ± 0.3 μm, P=.05). Other OCT outcome parameters did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions

Microincision cataract surgery and microphaco provided similarly good incision quality and optically neutral incisions; the MICS incision respected corneal prolateness more, with less corneal edema in the short term and less induced corneal aberrations in the long term.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

 Supported in part by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health, Instituto Carlos III, Red Temática de Investigación en Oftalmologia, Subproyecto de Cirugia Refractiva y Calidad Visual (C03/13).

PII: S0886-3350(08)01221-2

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.047

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 466-474, March 2009