Barcelona 2015 Programme Registration Glaucoma Day 2015 Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Hotel Booking Star Alliance
ISTANBUL escrs









Take a look inside the London 2014 Congress

video-icon

Then register to join us
in Barcelona!





Comparison of 1.8-mm incision vs 2.75-mm incision cataract surgery in combined phacoemulsification and 23-gauge vitrectomy

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Session Details

Session Title: Combined Cataract Surgery Techniques. Surgical Devices

Session Date/Time: Saturday 05/09/2015 | 08:30-10:30

Paper Time: 09:24

Venue: Main Auditorium

First Author: : M.Czajka SWEDEN

Co Author(s): :    B. Johansson   A. Frajdenberg                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare intraoperative and postoperative complications, and outcomes of combined 23-Gauge vitrectomy with coaxial cataract surgery using 1.8 mm microincision and 2.75-mm standard incision method.

Setting:

Department of Ophthalmology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden

Methods:

In this prospective study 30 eyes of 30 patients planned for combined phacoemulsification and 23G vitrectomy were enrolled, and randomized to undergo either Standard 2.75mm Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS, 15 eyes) or Coaxial 1.8mm Micro-Incision Cataract Surgery (C-MICS, 15 eyes) followed by vitrectomy. The inclusion criteria were cataract and macular disorders including macular hole (MH), epiretinal membrane (EM) and vitreomacular traction (VMT). Baseline and follow-up data were systematically recorded at presentation, 1 month and 12 months or more after surgery.

Results:

Incision leakage occurred in 2 eyes (7%: 1 per group), retinal break in 9 (30%: 4 in C-MICS, 5 in SICS). Fibrin in AC occurred day 1 in 3 eyes (10%: 2 C-MICS and 1 SICS). PCO developed in 22 eyes (78%: 13 C-MICS, 9 SICS, P = 0.1). A myopic shift of -0.63 +/- 0.7 was noted (-0,59 +/- 0.8 C-MICS,-0.68 +/-0.6 SICS, P = 0.74). Surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly smaller in C-MICS group (KP, -0.019 +/- 0.095 vs. -0.141 +/- 0.219, P= 0.0038) at 1 month but not at last control (KP, 0.0005 +/-0.16 in MICS vs. -0.057+/-0.12, P= 0.36).

Conclusions:

Both techniques were equally safe with respect to intraoperative and postoperative findings. C-MICS group was associated with less surgically-induced astigmatism (SIA) 1 month after surgery but differences were not statistically significant with last follow-up indicating a faster refractive recovery with C-MICS compared with SICS.

Financial Interest:

NONE

Back to previous