Comparison of Morphological and Functional Endothelial Cell Changes after Cataract Surgery: Phacoemulsification Versus Manual Small-Incision Cataract Surgery

Purpose: To compare the morphological (cell density, coefficient of variation and standard deviation) and functional (central corneal thickness) endothelial changes after phacoemulsification versus manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS). Design: Prospective randomized control study. Materials and Methods: In this prospective randomized control study, patients were randomly allocated to undergo phacoemulsification (Group 1, n = 100) or MSICS (Group 2, n = 100) using a random number Table. The patients underwent complete ophthalmic evaluation and specular microscopy preoperatively and at 1and 6 weeks postoperatively. Functional and morphological endothelial evaluation was Noncon ROBO PACHY SP-9000 specular microscope. Phacoemulsification was performed, the chop technique and MSICS, by the viscoexpression technique. Results: The mean difference in central corneal thickness at baseline and 1 week between Group 1 and Group 2 was statistically significant (P = 0.027). However, this difference at baseline when compared to 6 week and 1 week, 6 weeks was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The difference in mean endothelial cell density between groups at 1 week and 6 weeks was statistically significant (P = 0.016). The mean coefficient of variation and mean standard deviation between groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, both comparisons). Conclusion: The central corneal thickness, coefficient of variation, and standard deviation were maintained in both groups indicating that the function and morphology of endothelial cells was not affected despite an initial reduction in endothelial cell number in MSICS. Thus, MSICS remains a safe option in the developing world.

[1]  M. Deshpande,et al.  Comparison of endothelial cell loss after cataract surgery: Phacoemulsification versus manual small‐incision cataract surgery: Six‐week results of a randomized control trial , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  S. Basak,et al.  Keratouveitis caused by Euphorbia plant sap , 2009, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  G. Shlamovitz,et al.  A case of acute keratoconjunctivitis from exposure to latex of Euphorbia tirucalli (pencil cactus). , 2009, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[4]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Prospective long-term evaluation of the efficacy, safety, and stability of the phakic intraocular lens for high myopia. , 2008, Archives of ophthalmology.

[5]  J. Nørregaard,et al.  Endothelial cell damage after cataract surgery: Divide‐and‐conquer versus phaco‐chop technique , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[6]  G. Barbera,et al.  Past and present role of the Indian-fig prickly-pear (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller, Cactaceae) in the agriculture of sicily , 2008, Economic Botany.

[7]  D. Chang,et al.  A prospective randomized clinical trial of phacoemulsification vs manual sutureless small-incision extracapsular cataract surgery in Nepal. , 2007, American journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  G. Virgili,et al.  Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: Microincision versus standard technique , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  R. George,et al.  Comparison of Endothelial Cell Loss and Surgically Induced Astigmatism following Conventional Extracapsular Cataract Surgery, Manual Small-Incision Surgery and Phacoemulsification , 2005, Ophthalmic epidemiology.

[10]  D. Sanders,et al.  Corneal endothelial assessment after ICL implantation. , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[11]  R. Bourne,et al.  Effect of cataract surgery on the corneal endothelium: modern phacoemulsification compared with extracapsular cataract surgery. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[12]  K. Frick,et al.  Economic cost of cataract surgery procedures in an established eye care centre in Southern India , 2004, Ophthalmic epidemiology.

[13]  I. Wang,et al.  Removal of semitranslucent cactus spines embedded in deep cornea with the aid of a fiberoptic illuminator. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology-glaucoma.

[14]  M. L. Salvetat,et al.  Effect of incision size and site on corneal endothelial changes in cataract surgery , 2002, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  A. Huntley,et al.  Rash after visiting Tucson. , 2001, Dermatology Online Journal.

[16]  A. C. Ventura,et al.  Corneal thickness and endothelial density before and after cataract surgery , 2001, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  A. Castillo,et al.  Endothelial damage with cataract surgery techniques , 1998, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  G. Ravalico,et al.  Corneal endothelial protection by different viscoelastics during phacoemulsification , 1997, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  J. McLaren,et al.  Variations in human corneal endothelial cell morphology and permeability to fluorescein with age. , 1988, Experimental eye research.

[20]  R O Schultz,et al.  Response of the corneal endothelium to cataract surgery. , 1986, Archives of ophthalmology.

[21]  Y. Biger,et al.  [Eye injuries due to cactus thorns]. , 1986, Harefuah.

[22]  R O Schultz,et al.  Changes in the normal corneal endothelial cellular pattern as a function of age. , 1985, Current eye research.

[23]  D. Whiting,et al.  Dermatitis and keratoconjunctivitis caused by a prickly pear (Opuntia microdasys). , 1975, South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde.

[24]  F. Sagher,et al.  Sabra dermatitis; an occupational dermatitis due to prickly pear handling stimulating scabies. , 1956, A.M.A. archives of dermatology.