Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0146676
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Yu X
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shentu X;Zhang X;Tang X;Yu X
我们进行了这项荟萃分析，以比较同轴小切口白内障手术(C-MICS)和标准同轴小切口白内障手术(C-SICS)的疗效。报告C-MICS和C-SICS的随机对照试验(RCT)的结果于2015年5月从PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆收集。对术中和术后的超声时间(UST)、有效超声乳化时间(EPT)、平衡盐液使用量(BSS使用量)、累计耗能(CDE)、平均手术时间、内皮细胞损失率(ECL%)、最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、中央角膜厚度(CCT)、激光耀斑光度和手术后散光(SIA)进行Meta分析。最终的Meta分析纳入了15项随机对照试验，涉及1136只眼。在EPT、BSS使用、CDE、BCVA、激光耀斑光度或CCT增加方面，组间差异无统计学意义。然而，C-MICS组的SIA较少(术后第7天：P<；0.01；术后30天及以上：P<；0.01)，ECL%较高(术后60天或以上：P<；0.01)，而C-SICS组所需的UST较短(P<；0.01)。目前的Meta分析表明，C-MICS技术在SIA方面比C-SICS技术更具优势，但C-MICS技术需要更长的UST，并诱导更高的ECL%。为了证实我们的结果，还需要做进一步的研究。
We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) and standard coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS). The outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting C-MICS and C-SICS were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library in May 2015. The final meta-analysis was conducted on the following intraoperative and postoperative outcomes: ultrasound time (UST), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), balanced salt solution use (BSS use), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), mean surgery time, endothelial cell loss percentage (ECL%), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), increased central corneal thickness (CCT), laser flare photometry values and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA). A total of 15 RCTs, involving 1136 eyes, were included in the final meta-analysis. No significant between-group differences were detected in EPT, BSS use, CDE, BCVA, laser flare photometry values or increased CCT. However, the C-MICS group showed less SIA (at postoperative day 7: p<0.01; at postoperative day 30 or more: p<0.01) and greater ECL% (at postoperative day 60 or more: p<0.01), whereas the C-SICS group required a shorter UST (p<0.01). The present meta-analysis suggested that the C-MICS technique was more advantageous than C-SICS in terms of SIA, but C-MICS required a longer UST and induced a higher ECL%. Further studies should be done to confirm our results.