Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract

  1. Yasmin Riaz1,
  2. Samantha R de Silva1,
  3. Jennifer R Evans2,*

Editorial Group: Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group

Published Online: 10 OCT 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 23 JUL 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008813.pub2


How to Cite

Riaz Y, de Silva SR, Evans JR. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD008813. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008813.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, UK

  2. 2

    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, ICEH, London, UK

*Jennifer R Evans, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, ICEH, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. jennifer.evans@lshtm.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 10 OCT 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Types of cataract surgery
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Results from searching for studies for inclusion in the review.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 1 Good functional vision at 3 months (uncorrected acuity).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 2 Good functional vision at 12 months (uncorrected acuity).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 3 Good functional vision at 3 months (best-corrected acuity).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 4 Good functional vision at 12 months (best-corrected acuity).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 5 Poor visual outcome at 3 months (best-corrected acuity worse than 6/60).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 6 Poor visual outcome at 12 months (best-corrected acuity worse than 6/60).
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 7 Posterior capsular rupture.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 8 Iridodialysis.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 9 Capsulorhesis extended.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 10 Postoperative inflammation.
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 11 Corneal oedema postoperatively.
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 12 Corneal oedema 3 to 6 weeks.
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 13 Posterior capsule opacification.
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 MSICS versus phacoemulsification, Outcome 14 Endothelial cell loss.