Outcomes After Combined 1.8-MM Microincision Cataract Surgery and 23-Gauge Transconjunctival Vitrectomy for Posterior Segment Disease

Czajka, Marcin; Frajdenberg, Agata; Johansson, Björn

doi:10.1097/iae.0b013e3182947b29

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, none of the eyes from the C‐MICS group required suturing of the corneal wound in accordance with our previous findings, which indicated that 1.8‐mm corneal incision offers very good AC stability, even under excessive manipulation of the globe during surgery (Czajka et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Only one eye in this study (3%) developed iris posterior synechiae postoperatively, similar to previous studies of combined C‐MICS and vitrectomy with low incidence (Czajka et al. ; Jalil et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Although the total observed rate of fibrin formation was higher than in two previous studies of C‐MICS and vitrectomy (2% and 4%), comparison should be made with caution because of the retrospective nature of those studies (Czajka et al. ; Jalil et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Combined C‐MICS or B‐MICS and small‐gauge vitrectomy offers the combined advantages of MICS associated with less wound leakage, good anterior chamber (AC) stability and safety together with small‐gauge vitrectomy providing decreased inflammation and faster rehabilitation after surgery (Schonfeld ; Czajka et al. ; Jalil et al. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a retrospective study, we previously demonstrated the feasibility of the combined C‐MICS and 23G vitrectomy (Czajka et al. ). There is, however, to our knowledge no prospective study examining possible advantages of this combined technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of 1.8‐mm incision versus 2.75‐mm incision cataract surgery in combined phacoemulsification and 23‐gauge vitrectomy

Czajka

Frajdenberg

Johansson

2016

Acta Ophthalmologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To compare 1.8 mm micro-incision and 2.75 mm standard incision in coaxial cataract surgery combined with 23-Gauge (23G) vitrectomy with respect to intraoperative and postoperative complications and outcomes. 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 2.75 mm Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS, 15 eyes) or Coaxial 1.8 mm Micro-Incision Cataract Surgery (C-MICS, 15 eyes) followed by vitrectomy. Inclusion criteria were cataract and macular disorders including macular hole, epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction. Data were collected at preoperative evaluation and 1 and 12 months or more after surgery. Results: Incision leakage occurred in two eyes (7%: one per group), retinal break in nine (30%: four in C-MICS, five in SICS). Fibrin in anterior chamber (AC) occurred day 1 in three eyes (10%: two C-and one SICS). Posterior capsule opacification developed in 22 eyes (78%: 13 MICS, nine SICS, p = 0.1). A myopic shift of À0.63 AE 0.7 was noted (À0.59 AE 0.8 MICS, À0.68 AE 0.6 SICS, p = 0.74). Surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was significantly smaller in C-MICS group (DKP, À0.019 AE 0.095 versus À0.141 AE 0.219, p = 0.0038) at 1 month but not at final follow-up (DKP, 0.0005 AE 0.16 in C-MICS versus À0.057 AE 0.12, p = 0.3 Conclusions: Both techniques were equally safe with respect to intraoperative and postoperative findings. Coaxial micro-incision cataract surgery (C-MICS) was associated with less surgically-induced astigmatism (SIA) 1 month after surgery but differences were not statistically significant at final follow-up indicating a faster refractive recovery with C-MICS than with SICS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations