Extracapsular cataract surgery compared with manual small incision cataract surgery in community eye care setting in western India: a randomised controlled trial. Visual outcome of conventional extracapsular cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation versus manual small-incision cataract surgery. Comparison of endothelial cell loss and surgically induced astigmatism following conventional extracapsular cataract surgery, manual small-incision surgery and phacoemulsification.
To study "manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS)" for the rehabilitation of cataract visually impaired and blind patients in community based, high volume, eye hospital setting; to compare the safety and effectiveness of MSICS with conventional extracapsular cataract surgery (ECCE).
                In a single masked randomised controlled clinical trial, 741 patients, aged 40-90 years, with operable cataract were randomly assigned to receive either MSICS or ECCE and operated upon by one of eight participating surgeons. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were graded and scored according to the Oxford Cataract Treatment and Evaluation Team recommendations. The patients were followed up at 1 week, 6 weeks, and 1 year after surgery and their visual acuity recorded.
                This paper reports outcomes at 1 and 6 weeks. 706 of the 741(95.3%) patients completed the 6 week follow up. 135 of 362 (37.3%) of ECCE group and 165 of 344 (47.9%) of MSICS group had uncorrected visual acuity of 6/18 or better after 6 weeks of follow up. 314 of 362 (86.7%) of ECCE group and 309 of 344 (89.8%) of MSICS group had corrected postoperative vision of 6/18 or better. Four of 362 (1.1%) of ECCE group and six of 344 (1.7%) of MSICS group had corrected postoperative visual acuity less than 6/60. There were no significant differences between the two groups for intraoperative and severe postoperative complications.
                MSICS and ECCE are both safe and effective techniques for treatment of cataract patients in community eye care settings. MSICS needs similar equipment to ECCE, but gives better uncorrected vision. an effective method for cataract surgery should be identified to combat cataract blindness.
                to study the surgical outcome of conventional extracapsular cataract extraction versus manual small-incision cataract surgery.
                a randomized clinical trial was carried out including one hundred eyes (88 patients) which were divided into two groups using systematic randomization: groups of conventional extracapsular cataract extractionwith posterior chamber intraocular lens (ECCE with PCIOL) implantation and manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS). The postoperative parameters/variables studied were the unaided and best-corrected visual acuity and astigmatism.
                epi info 2000 version statistical software was used for data analysis and calculation of relative risk, 95% CI and p value. The p value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.
                in the immediate postoperative period, unaided visual acuity of =or> 6/18 was achieved in 24 subjects in MSICS group versus 7 in ECCE with PCIOL group (RR=2.05, 95% CI= 1.44 - 2.94, p = 0.0002), whereas the same at 6 - 8 weeks postoperatively was found in 28 and 22 subjects in those groups respectively (RR=1l.27, 95% CI=0.86-1.89, p=0.23). The astigmatism of =or> 2 at6 - 8 weeks was found in 35 and 17 subjects from the conventional and MSICS groups respectively ( R=2.28, 95% CI= 1.39-3.73, p=0.0002).
                both MSICS and conventional ECCE with PCIOL are safe and effective techniques for treatment of cataract patients. A more rapid recovery of good vision can be achieved with MSICS than with conventional ECCE with PCIOL in the immediate postoperative period. To compare the surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) and endothelial cell loss following conventional extracapsular cataract surgery (ECCE), manual small-incision cataract surgery (Blumenthal technique)(SICS) and phacoemulsification (PE) with non-foldable intraocular lens implantation.
                186 cataractous eyes with nuclear sclerosis grade 3 or less were randomized to undergo ECCE, SICS or PE with intraocular lens (non-foldable) implantation after a detailed pre-operative assessment. Keratometry and specular microscopy were performed pre-operatively and 6 weeks postoperatively. Surgically induced astigmatism was calculated using the rectangular coordinate method (Holladay et al.).
                Mean endothelial cell loss was similar for all three groups (p = 0.855); ECCE induced a loss of 4.72% (SD: 13.07); SICS 4.21% (SD: 10.29) and PE 5.41% (SD: 10.99). Mean SIA was 1.77D (1.61D) for the ECCE group, 1.17D (0.95D) for the SICS group and 0.77D (0.65D) for the PE group (p = 0.001). The magnitude of the difference between the SICS and the PE group was 0.4D.
                PE induced less astigmatism than SICS and ECCE in this study but the magnitude of the difference between SICS and PE was small. There was no significant difference in endothelial cell loss between the three groups.
There are no other studies from other countries other than India and Nepal and there are insufficient data on cost-effectiveness of each procedure. Better evidence is needed before any change may be implemented. Future studies need to have longer-term follow-up and be conducted to minimize biases revealed in this review with a larger sample size to allow examination of adverse events.