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
Review
. 2024 May 29:18:1535-1546.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S463525. eCollection 2024.

Phaco-Chop versus Divide-and-Conquer in Patients Who Underwent Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jaime Guedes  1   2 , Sacha Fernandes Pereira  3 , Dillan Cunha Amaral  4 , Larissa C Hespanhol  5 , Adriano Cypriano Faneli  6 , Ricardo Danilo Chagas Oliveira  2   7 , Denisse J Mora-Paez  1 , Bruno M Fontes  2
Affiliations
Review

Phaco-Chop versus Divide-and-Conquer in Patients Who Underwent Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jaime Guedes et al. Clin Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Background: Cataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed eye surgeries worldwide, and among several techniques, phacoemulsification has become the standard of care due to its safety and efficiency. We evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of two phacoemulsification techniques: phaco-chop and divide-and-conquer.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective and retrospective studies that compared the phaco-chop technique over the divide-and-conquer technique and reported the outcomes of (1) Endothelial cell count change (ECC); (2) Ultrasound time (UST); (3) Cumulated dissipated energy (CDE); (4) Surgery time; and (5) Phacoemulsification time (PT). Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for outcomes with high heterogeneity.

Results: Nine final studies, (6 prospective RCTs and 3 observational), comprising 837 patients undergoing phacoemulsification. 435 (51.9%) underwent the phaco-chop technique, and 405 (48.1%) underwent divide-and-conquer. Overall, the phaco-chop technique was associated with several advantages: a significant difference in ECC change postoperatively (Mean Difference [MD] -221.67 Cell/mm2; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -401.68 to -41.66; p < 0.02; I2=73%); a shorter UST (MD -51.16 sec; 95% CI -99.4 to -2.79; p = 0.04; I2=98%); reduced CDE (MD -8.68 units; 95% CI -12.76 to -4.60; p < 0.01; I2=84%); a lower PT (MD -55.09 sec; 95% CI -99.29 to -12.90; p = 0.01; I2=100). There were no significant differences in surgery time (MD -3.86 min; 95% CI -9.55 to 1.83; p = 0.18; I2=99%).

Conclusion: The phaco-chop technique proved to cause fewer hazards to the corneal endothelium, with less delivered intraocular ultrasound energy when compared to the divide-and-conquer technique.

Keywords: cataract; cataract extraction; divide-and-conquer; meta-analysis; phaco-chop; phacoemulsification; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of study screening and selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Endothelial Cell Count Forest plot.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulated Dissipated Energy Forest plot.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Ultrasound Time Forest plot.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Surgery time forest plot.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Phacoemulsification time forest plot.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Risk of bias assessment of RCTs using the ROB-2 tool.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Risk of bias assessment of Observational studies using the ROBINS-I tool.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Funnel plot analysis. (A) Endothelial Cell Count. (B) Cumulated Dissipated Energy. (C) Ultrasound Time. (D) Surgery Time. (E) Phacoemulsification Time.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fang R, Y-F Y, E-J L, et al. Global, regional, national burden and gender disparity of cataract: findings from the global burden of disease study. BMC Public Health. 2019;2019:1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):614–618. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davis G. The Evolution of Cataract Surgery. Mo Med. 2016;113(1):58–62. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amaral DC, Louzada RN, Moreira PHS, et al. Combined endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation and phacoemulsification versus phacoemulsification alone in the glaucoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e55853. doi:10.7759/cureus.55853 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mahdy MA, Eid MZ, Mohammed MA, Hafez A, Bhatia J. Relationship between endothelial cell loss and microcoaxial phacoemulsification parameters in noncomplicated cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:503–510. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S29865 - DOI - PMC - PubMed