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
. 2015 Nov;93(7):593-600.
doi: 10.1111/aos.12665. Epub 2015 Jan 20.

Cataract surgery and age-related macular degeneration. An evidence-based update

Line Kessel  1   2 , Ditte Erngaard  3 , Per Flesner  4 , Jens Andresen  5 , Britta Tendal  2   6 , Jesper Hjortdal  7
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Cataract surgery and age-related macular degeneration. An evidence-based update

Line Kessel et al. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cataract often coexist in patients and concerns that cataract surgery is associated with an increased risk of incidence or progression of existing AMD has been raised. This systematic review and meta-analysis is focused on presenting the evidence concerning progression of AMD in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases. Two randomized trials and two case-control trials were identified. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, data were extracted, and meta-analyses were performed. Quality of the available evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system.

Results: We found that visual acuity at 6-12 months follow-up was significantly better (6.5-7.5 letters) in eyes that had undergone cataract surgery than in unoperated eyes, but the included number of subjects was small, and hence, the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. We did not find an increased risk of progression to exudative AMD 6-12 months after cataract surgery [RR 3.21 (0.14-75.68)], but the included number of subjects was small, and thus, the quality of the evidence was moderate.

Conclusion: Cataract surgery increases visual acuity without an increased risk of progression to exudative AMD, but further research with longer follow-up is encouraged.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration; cataract surgery; exudative age-related macular degeneration; outcome; visual acuity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forest plot comparing visual acuity (logMAR) at 6 months (Hooper et al. 2009) or 12 months (Armbrecht et al. 2003 and Baatz et al. 2008) after cataract surgery or observation. SD = standard deviation, IV = inverse variance, CI = confidence interval.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing progression to exudative AMD during a 6 (Hooper et al. 2009) to 12 months follow‐up period (Armbrecht et al. 2003; Baatz et al. 2008 and Brunner et al. 2013) in eyes with AMD undergoing cataract surgery or being observed without surgery. M‐H = Mantel‐Haenszel, CI = confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Algvere PV, Marshall J & Seregard S (2006): Age‐related maculopathy and the impact of blue light hazard. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84: 4–15. - PubMed
    1. Armbrecht AM, Findlay C, Kaushal S, Aspinall P, Hill AR & Dhillon B (2000): Is cataract surgery justified in patients with age related macular degeneration? A visual function and quality of life assessment Br J Ophthalmol 84: 1343–1348. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Armbrecht AM, Findlay C, Aspinall PA, Hill AR & Dhillon B (2003): Cataract surgery in patients with age‐related macular degeneration: one‐year outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 29: 686–693. - PubMed
    1. Baatz H, Darawsha R, Ackermann H, Scharioth GB, de Ortueta D, Pavlidis M & Hattenbach LO (2008): Phacoemulsification does not induce neovascular age‐related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49: 1079–1083. - PubMed
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ et al. (2011): GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64: 401–406. - PubMed

Publication types