Astigmatic equivalence of 2.2-mm and 1.8-mm superior clear corneal cataract incision

Abstract

In our study, the astigmatic effects were the same for the 2.2 mm and 1.8 mm incisions and as expected, were significantly lower than the control 3.2 mm incision group.

Different-sized incisions for phacoemulsification in age-related cataract

“…One trial was conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Musanovic 2012), 13 trials in China (Hui 2016; Li 2016; Lin 2013; Luo 2012; Mao 2008; Shan 2016; Shi 2013; Wang 2009; Yao 2008; Yao 2011; Yu 2016; Zhang 2014; Zhu 2014), one trial in France (Febbraro 2015), one trial in India (Vasavada 2013a), one trial in Italy (Mastropasqua 2011), five trials in Korea (Hwang 2008; Hwang 2016; Jeong 2013; Li 2011; Moon 2011), two trials in Spain (Capella 2010; Morcillo-Laiz 2009), one trial in Switzerland (Dosso 2008), and one trial in Turkey (Can 2010). …”

“…Five trials had three arms (Can 2010; Febbraro 2015; Luo 2012; Moon 2011; Yu 2016). Can 2010 was included in all pairwise comparisons, except the smaller C-MICS versus standard phacoemulsification comparison.…”

“…Can 2010 was included in all pairwise comparisons, except the smaller C-MICS versus standard phacoemulsification comparison. Febbraro 2015, Luo 2012, and Moon 2011 were included in all pair-wise comparisons except B-MICS compared with standard phacoemulsification. Yu 2016 was only included in the comparison between the smaller C-MICS and standard phacoemulsification, as the third arm was microincisions with 2.0 mm incision, which is not of interest to this review.…”

“…Six trials compared the smaller C-MICS with the larger C-MICS (Can 2010; Febbraro 2015; Luo 2012; Mastropasqua 2011; Moon 2011; Vasavada 2013a). …”

“…Fifteen trials reported outcomes for this comparison (Can 2010; Febbraro 2015; Hwang 2008; Hwang 2016; Jeong 2013; Li 2011; Li 2016; Lin 2013; Luo 2012; Moon 2011; Musanovic 2012; Shan 2016; Shi 2013; Wang 2009; Zhu 2014). Shi 2013 included both eyes of 34 of 98 participants (35%) in the study, but they did not report to which group the eyes were allocated and did not account for intraperson correlation in their analysis.…”