Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Oct 10;2013(10):CD008813.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008813.pub2.

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

Yasmin Riaz  1 , Samantha R de Silva, Jennifer R Evans
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Yasmin Riaz et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Age-related cataract is a major cause of blindness and visual morbidity worldwide. It is therefore important to establish the optimal technique of lens removal in cataract surgery.

Objectives: To compare manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and phacoemulsification techniques.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (January 1970 to July 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 July 2013.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for age-related cataract that compared MSICS and phacoemulsification.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed all studies. We defined two primary outcomes: 'good functional vision' (presenting visual acuity of 6/12 or better) and 'poor visual outcome' (best corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60). We collected data on these outcomes at three and 12 months after surgery. Complications such as posterior capsule rupture rates and other intra- and postoperative complications were also assessed. In addition, we examined cost effectiveness of the two techniques. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a random-effects model.

Main results: We included eight trials in this review with a total of 1708 participants. Trials were conducted in India, Nepal and South Africa. Follow-up ranged from one day to six months, but most trials reported at six to eight weeks after surgery. Overall the trials were judged to be at risk of bias due to unclear reporting of masking and follow-up. No studies reported presenting visual acuity so data were collected on both best-corrected (BCVA) and uncorrected (UCVA) visual acuity. Most studies reported visual acuity of 6/18 or better (rather than 6/12 or better) so this was used as an indicator of good functional vision. Seven studies (1223 participants) reported BCVA of 6/18 or better at six to eight weeks (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.99 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.01) indicating no difference between the MSICS and phacoemulsification groups. Three studies (767 participants) reported UCVA of 6/18 or better at six to eight weeks, with a pooled RR indicating a more favourable outcome with phacoemulsification (0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96). One trial (96 participants) reported UCVA at six months with a RR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.26).Regarding BCVA of less than 6/60: there were only 11/1223 events reported. The pooled Peto odds ratio was 2.48 indicating a more favourable outcome using phacoemulsification but with wide confidence intervals (0.74 to 8.28) which means that we are uncertain as to the true effect.The number of complications reported were also low for both techniques. Again this means the review is underpowered to detect a difference between the two techniques with respect to these complications. One study reported on cost which was more than four times higher using phacoemulsification than MSICS.

Authors' conclusions: On the basis of this review, removing cataract by phacoemulsification may result in better UCVA in the short term (up to three months after surgery) compared to MSICS, but similar BCVA. There is a lack of data on long-term visual outcome. The review is currently underpowered to detect differences for rarer outcomes, including poor visual outcome. In view of the lower cost of MSICS, this may be a favourable technique in the patient populations examined in these studies, where high volume surgery is a priority. Further studies are required with longer-term follow-up to better assess visual outcomes and complications which may develop over time such as posterior capsule opacification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

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

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Cook 2012 {published data only}
    1. Cook C, Carrara H, Myer L. Phacoemulsification versus manual small incision cataract surgery in South Africa. South African Medical Journal 2012;102(6):537‐40. - PubMed
George 2005 {published data only}
    1. George R, Rupauliha P, Sripriya AV, Rajesh PS, Vahan PV, Praveen S. Comparison of endothelial cell loss and surgically induced astigmatism following conventional extracapsular cataract surgery, manual small‐incision surgery and phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2005;12(5):293‐7. - PubMed
Ghosh 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ghosh S, Roy I, Biswas PN, Maji D, Mondal LK, Mukhopadhyay S, et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of macular thickness following phacoemulsification and manual small incision cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmologica 2010;88:e102‐6. - PubMed
Gogate 2005a {published data only}
    1. Gogate P, Deshpande M, Nirmalan PK. Why do phacoemulsification? Manual small‐incision cataract surgery is almost as effective, but less expensive. Ophthalmology 2007;114(5):965‐8. - PubMed
    1. Gogate PM, Kulkarni SR, Krishnaiah S, Deshpande RD, Joshi SA, Palimkar A, et al. Safety and efficacy of phacoemulsification compared with manual small‐incision cataract surgery by a randomized controlled clinical trial: six‐week results. Ophthalmology 2005;112(5):869‐74. - PubMed
Gogate 2010 {published data only}
    1. Gogate P, Ambardekar P, Kulkarni S, Deshpande R, Joshi S, Deshpande M. Comparison of endothelial cell loss after cataract surgery: phacoemulsification versus manual small‐incision cataract surgery: six‐week results of a randomized control trial. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2010;36(2):247‐53. - PubMed
Ruit 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ruit S, Tabin G, Chang D, Bajracharya L, Kline DC, Richheimer W, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of phacoemulsification vs manual sutureless small‐incision extracapsular cataract surgery in Nepal. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;143(1):32‐8. - PubMed
Singh 2009 {published data only}
    1. Singh SK, Winter I, Surin L. Phacoemulsification versus small incision cataract surgery (SICS): which one is a better surgical option for immature cataract in developing countries?. Nepalese Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;1(2):95‐100. - PubMed
Venkatesh 2010 {published data only}
    1. Venkatesh R, Tan CS, Sengupta S, Ravindran RD, Krishnan KT, Chang DF. Phacoemulsification versus manual small‐incision cataract surgery for white cataract. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2010;36(11):1849‐54. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Cai 2008 {published data only}
    1. Cai Y, Pan Y, Liu X, Nie H, Yang S, Yan X. Safety of cataract surgery and comparison of efficacy of small incision cataract surgery and phacoemulsification in Tibet. Chinese Ophthalmic Research 2008;26(11):852‐5.
Centurion 1999 {published data only}
    1. Centurion V, Lacava AC, Caballero JC, Modq E. Capsulorrhexis in patients with white cataract [Capsulorrexe em catarata branca]. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia 1999;58(7):517‐21.
Centurion 2005 {published data only}
    1. Centurion V, Lacava AC, Carrari MJ, Caballero JC. Capsulotomy with trypan blue in mature cararact: results [Catarata sem reflexo vermelho e capsulotomia com azul tripan: resultados]. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia 2005;64(1):20‐4.
Chanis 1993 {published data only}
    1. Chanis RA. Phacoemulsification. Towards a cataract surgery without sutures [Facoemulsificación. Hacia la cirugía de catarata sin suturas]. Revista Médica de Panamá 1993;18(3):161‐5. - PubMed
Elkady 2009 {published data only}
    1. Elkady B, Piñero D, Alió JL. Corneal incision quality: microincision cataract surgery versus microcoaxial phacoemulsification. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2009;35(3):466‐74. - PubMed
Goel 2012 {published data only}
    1. Goel R, Kamal S, Kumar S, Kishore J, Malik KP, Angmo Bodh S, et al. Feasibility and complications between phacoemulsification and manual small incision surgery in subluxated cataract. Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;2012:Article ID 205139. [DOI: ] - PMC - PubMed
Parmar 2006 {published data only}
    1. Parmar P, Salman A, Kaliamurthy J, Prasanth DA, Thomas PA, Jesudasan CA. Anterior chamber contamination during phacoemulsification and manual small‐incision cataract surgery. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2006;141(6):1160‐1. - PubMed
Reddy 2007 {published data only}
    1. Reddy B, Raj A, Singh VP. Site of incision and corneal astigmatism in conventional SICS versus phacoemulsification. Annals of Ophthalmology 2007;39(3):209‐16. - PubMed

Additional references

Ang 2012
    1. Ang M, Mehta JS, Evans JR. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008811.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Blumenthal 1992
    1. Blumenthal M, Ashkenazi I, Assia E, Cahane M. Small‐incision manual extracapsular cataract extraction using selective hydrodissection. Ophthalmic Surgery 1992;23(10):699‐701. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Gogate 2003
    1. Gogate PM, Deshpande M, Wormald RP, Deshpande R, Kulkarni SR. Extracapsular cataract surgery compared with manual small incision cataract surgery in community eye care setting in western India: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;87(6):667‐72. - PMC - PubMed
Gogate 2005b
    1. Gogate PM, Kulkarni SR, Krishnaiah S, Deshpande RD, Joshi SA, Palimkar A, et al. Safety and efficacy of phacoemulsification compared with manual small‐incision cataract surgery by a randomized controlled clinical trial: six‐week results. Ophthalmology 2005;112(5):869‐74. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SJ, Deeks JJ, Altman DJ. Measuring inconsistencies in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐560. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Kirkham 2010
    1. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010;340:c365. - PubMed
Muralikrishnan 2004
    1. Muralikrishnan R, Venkatesh R, Pajna NV, Frick KD. Economic cost of cataract surgery procedures in an established eye care centre in Southern India. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2004;11(5):369‐80. - PubMed
Passolini 2004
    1. Passolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP, Pararajasegarm R, Etyalale D, Negrel AD, et al. 2002 global update of available data on visual impairment:a compilation of population‐based prevalence studies. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2004;11(2):67‐115. - PubMed
Perera 2007
    1. Perera R, Glasziou P. A simple method to correct for the design effect in systematic reviews of trials using paired dichotomous data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2007;60(9):975‐8. - PubMed
Resnikoff 2004
    1. Resnikoff S, Passolini D, Etyalale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegarm R, Pokharel GP, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of The World Health Organization 2004;82(11):844‐51. - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Riaz 2006
    1. Riaz Y, Mehta JS, Wormald R, Evans JR, Foster A, Ravilla T, et al. Surgical interventions for age‐related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001323.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Riaz 2010a
    1. Riaz Y, Malik ANJ, Evans JR. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008812] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Ruit 2000
    1. Ruit S, Paudyal G, Gurung R, Tabin G, Moran D, Brian G. An innovation in developing world cataract surgery: sutureless extracapsular cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2000;28(4):274‐9. - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
White 2008
    1. White IR, Higgins JP, Wood AM. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis‐Part 1: two‐stage methods. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(5):711‐27. - PubMed
WHO 2005
    1. World Health Organization Executive Board. Prevention of Avoidable Blindness and Visual Impairment. Executive Board 117th session, EB117/35 22 December 2005.
Yorston 2005
    1. Yorston D. High‐volume surgery in developing countries. Eye 2005;19(10):1083‐9. - PubMed
Zhang 2013
    1. Zhang JY, Feng YF, Cai JQ. Phacoemulsification versus manual small‐incision cataract surgery for age‐related cataract: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2013;41(4):379‐86. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Riaz 2010b
    1. Riaz Y, Malik ANJ, Evans JR. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age‐related cataract. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008813] - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources