Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
January - February 2009 ?????, et al.: ??????? 45
Introduction
Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) has become
popular in India in the last decade. Cataract is the leading cause
of avoidable blindness in India,[1] and cataract surgery forms
the major workload of most ophthalmic units in the country.
An estimated 4 million people become blind because of cataract
every year,[2] which is added to a backlog of 10 million operable
cataracts in India, whereas only 5 million cataract surgeries
are performed annually in the country.[3] Thus, a technique
of cataract surgery that is not only safe and eff ective but also
economical and easy for the majority of ophthalmologists to
master is the need of the hour.
Conventional extracapsular cataract surgery (ECCE),
MSICS, and phacoemulsiÞ cation (phaco) are the three most
popular forms of cataract surgery in India and rest of the
world. [4] Phaco is the technique of choice in the Western world
and tertiary eye care centers in India.
A literature search was performed using the Pubmed
(www.pubmed.gov) for articles on small incision cataract
surgery published from 1985 onwards. The search was done
for articles in all languages, although most results were in
English only. Additionally, books on MSICS by Indian authors,
the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology website, the British Journal of
Ophthalmology website, and the Journal of Cataract and Refractive
Surgery websites were also used.
A randomized controlled trial in the United Kingdom
had found phaco to be more eff ective than ECCE for the
rehabilitation of cataract patients.[5] Two randomized,
controlled trials in Pune, India, had found MSICS to be more
eff ective[6] and economical7 than ECCE and almost as eff ective
as[8] and more economical than phacoemulsiÞ cation.[9] MSICS
is also cost eff ective and prevents the expenses for the purchase
and maintenance of the phaco machine.[9] MSICS has similar
advantages of phaco in the rehabilitation of the cataract blind.
It is also easier for a surgeon trained in ECCE surgery to master
MSICS than phacoemulsiÞ cation. There is no dependence on
the phaco machine, and the learning curve is less steep than
that of phaco. Surgeons who have mastered MSICS also show a
be" er learning curve for phaco, as the tunnel construction and
capsulorrhexis are common to both. Thus, among small incision
surgeries, MSICS is ideal for developing countries. It was
propagated for high-quality, high-volume cataract surgery at
the Aravind Eye Hospital, India,[10,11] and in Nepal.[12] An expert
trial in Nepal comparing phaco with MSICS published this year,
each done by a surgeon most proÞ cient in that technique, gave
similar results.[13] The MSICS patients had less corneal edema
on the Þ rst postoperative day and similar uncorrected visual
acuity. The surgical time for MSICS was also much shorter.
Some experts were skeptical about the Pune trials,[6,8] as the
same surgeons were randomized to both the techniques, and
doubts were raised that they may not be equally proÞ cient in
the diff erent techniques.[14] The Nepal study had the results of
Departments of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Community Eye Care,
H.V. Desai Eye Hospital, Mohommadwadi, Hadapsar, Pune-411 028,
India
Correspondence to Departments of Pediatric Ophthalmology,
Community Eye Care, H.V. Desai Eye Hospital, Mohommadwadi,
Hadapsar, Pune-411 028, India. E-mail: parikshitgogate@hotmail.com
Manuscript received: 21.02.07; Revision accepted: 16.08.07
Symposium
Small incision cataract surgery: Complications and mini-review
Parikshit M Gogate
This article reviews the literature on manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and its complications.
Various articles on MSICS published in indexed journals were reviewed, as well as the sections on
complications of MSICS. The Pubmed search engine on the Internet was used to Þ nd out articles published
since 1985 on MSICS in any language in indexed journals. Books published by Indian authors and the website
of Indian Journal of Ophthalmology were also referred to. MSICS has become very popular technique of
cataract surgery in India, and it is o# en used as an alternative to phacoemulsiÞ cation. Studies on its effi cacy
and safety for cataract surgery show that, being a variant of extracapsular cataract surgery, MSICS also
has similar intraoperative and postoperative complications. The considerable handling inside the anterior
chamber during nucleus delivery increase the chances of iris injury, striate keratitis, and posterior capsular
rupture. The surgeon has to be extra careful in the construction of the scleral tunnel and to achieve a good
capsulorrhexis. Postoperative inß ammation and corneal edema are rare if surgeons have the expertise and
patience. The Þ nal astigmatism is less than that in the extracapsular cataract surgery and almost comparable
to that in phacoemulsiÞ cation. There is, however, a concern of posterior capsular opaciÞ cation in the long
term, which needs to be addressed. Although MSICS demands skill and patience from the cataract surgeon,
it is a safe, eff ective, and economical alternative to competing techniques and can be the answer to tackle the
large backlog of blindness due to cataract.
Key words: Cataract surgery, intraoperative and postoperative complications, manual small incision cataract
surgery, phacoemulsiÞ cation
Indian J Ophthalmol: 2009;57:45-9
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 185.96.46.2]
46 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Vol. 57 No. 1
an accomplished phaco surgeon in the United States compared
with an expert manual small incision surgeon in Nepal.[13]
The MSICS techniques have the nucleus prolapsed into
the anterior chamber as a common step. The nucleus may
be rotated,[15] tumbled (ß ipped so that the posterior surface
faces the cornea and the anterior one is towards the iris) into
the anterior chamber, or may be simple picked up by a bent
cystitome, usually a 26-gauge needle. The nucleus may then
be removed by any of the following techniques:
a. Nucleus delivery using an irrigating vectis,[6,8,10,11] or a
curved cystitome—the Þ sh hook[12]
b. Using two instruments to sandwich the nucleus between
them[4,16,17]
c. Bisecting the nucleus into two using two instrument,
one as the “cu" er” and another, usually a vectis, as the
board[4,18,19]
d. By using a snare similar to the tonsillar snare[4]
e. Dividing the nucleus into three parts (trisection) using a
triangular instrument and a vectis[20]
f. Using an anterior chamber maintainer and a Sheet’s glide
(the Blumenthal technique).[4,21]
g. Viscoexpression of nucleus.
Intraoperative complications
Because MSICS is also a type of ECCE surgery, the complications
are similar, although there are certain unique ones. MSICS
involves more maneuvers in the anterior chamber, Þ rst the
capsulotomy, then dislodging the nucleus from the posterior
to the anterior chamber, and Þ nally removing the nucleus from
the scleral tunnel. The surgeon has to enter again for cortical
aspiration and intraocular lens implantation. The maneuvers
have to be done manually, unlike phacoemulsiÞ cation where
it is done with the machine equipped with ultrasonic power
and vacuum. As such the techniques are more demanding in
terms of manual dexterity and skill. However, the maneuvering
is similar to ECCE rather than phaco, and thus, MSICS is easier
for an ECCE-trained surgeon to master. Excessive corneal
handling, iris injury, posterior capsular rent, and zonulodialysis
are also seen with MSICS. The principles of a good ECCE
surgery, such as not to handle the cornea, to touch the iris
rarely, and to preserve the posterior capsule, all hold good for
MSICS (and phaco), as they are all variants of the conventional
ECCE technique.
Improper construction of the scleral tunnel can lead to
either bu" on holing [Fig. 1], if the tunnel is too shallow, and
premature entry, if the tunnel is too deep [Fig. 1]. There was a
single incidence of scleral tunnel bu" on holing amongst 168
cases in an MSICS series from Pune.[22] This happens if the
crescent knife is blunt or the surgeon has entered a superÞ cial
plane. A poorly constructed tunnel with premature entry causes
trauma to the iris base and may result in iridodialysis and
subsequent hemorrhage in the anterior chamber. The dialysis
can be further extended during nucleus delivery. The premature
entry into the anterior chamber makes the tunnel less self-
sealing, and a box or cross suture may be required at the end.
The continual iris prolapse during the surgery may predispose
to superior iris injury and chaffi ng, and even iridodialysis in
extreme cases. There would be a greater diffi culty in nucleus
delivery. To prevent premature entry, the crescent blade should
extend the tunnel into the cornea beyond the blue line, and the
2.8- or 3.2-mm entry keratome should make the inner lip of
the incision at the extreme anterior portion of the tunnel. As
the MSICS tunnels are horizontally longer than those needed
for phaco, the vertical width should be more than 2.5 mm. An
unfortunate superior iridodialysis can be managed by suturing
it into the posterior lip of the incision at the end of surgery.
Rotation or tumbling of the nucleus can put stress on
zonules during its delivery into the anterior chamber especially
through a small capsulotomy.[4] It is also diffi cult to maneuver
the nucleus through a small pupil and can result in sphincter
damage. The surgeon must take extra care to fully dilate the
pupil before surgery. The anterior chamber should be prevented
from becoming shallow, as that would decrease the dilatation
of the pupil.[4,21]
If the capsulotomy is small (6 mm or less), at least two
relaxing incisions should be placed on the superotemporal and
superonasal part of the continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis
(CCC) to facilitate nucleus delivery into the anterior chamber
and for the subsequent 12 o’clock cortex aspiration. A can-
opener capsulotomy can also be used but may have been
responsible for an increased incidence of posterior capsular
rents in the Pune study (12/200, 6% in MSICS group vs 7/200,
3.5% in the phaco group).[8] Another series of MSICS had 2/168
posterior capsular rents,[22] while another series of a 100 cases
on white cataracts from South India did not have a single
rent.[23]
As prolapsing the nucleus into the anterior chamber is the
key step in almost all the MSICS techniques, pupillary dilation
during surgery is a key facilitator. Small pupils make the nucleus
delivery diffi cult and increase the chances of manipulation of
the iris and resultant iritis. Inability to prolapse the nucleus
may lead to frustration, increased handling, sphincter tears, and
even abandoning the technique. MSICS should be tried with
caution in cases of iritis, rigid pupil, and pseudoexfoliation.
Beginners are advised to exclude these cases for MSICS, and
ECCE may be a safer alternative. Liberal use of viscoelastic
and patience is recommended even for experts. Tumbling the
nucleus into the anterior chamber is easier through a small
pupil than rotation, but it puts more stress on the capsular
rim and the zonules. Therefore, tumbling the nucleus should
be avoided in incomplete capsulorrhexis, weak zonules, and
Figure 1: (A) Buttonholing of the tunnel (B) Premature entry
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 185.96.46.2]
January - February 2009 Gogate: Complications of MSICS 47
Figure 3: Nucleus touching the endothelium
Figure 5: Trapezoid tunnel for better nucleus delivery
Figure 2: Inferior iridodialysis during nucleus extraction
Figure 4: Nucleus surrounded by viscoelastic all around in the anterior
chamber
pseudoexfoliation. In conditions of weak zonules like minimal
subluxation, pseudoexfoliation, and hypermature cataracts, it is
be" er to gently li# the nucleus into the anterior chamber with a
bent cystitome rather then tumble or rotate it.[12,15] Hypermature
and black cataracts have capsules that are already stretched
out and thin, with stress on the zonules. ECCE may be a safer
alternative,[4,24] although a study on phacolytic glaucoma has
shown MSICS to be safe and eff ective.[25] Pseudoexfoliation
with its rigid small pupil and weak zonules off ers a special
situation. Trypan blue dye may be used to get a complete large
capsulorrhexis and the nucleus gently rotated or li# ed into the
anterior chamber.[23,25]
Another very rare complication that is unique to
viscoexpulsion or phacosandwich technique of MSICS is
inferior iridodialysis.[10,16,23] In the irrigating vectis technique, if
the irrigating vectis is inadvertently placed below the pupillary
margin rather than between the margin and the nucleus, the
inferior part of the pupillary sphincter gets caught between the
vectis and the nucleus during nucleus delivery. This causes a
tear at the 6 o’clock iris base [Fig. 2], which was seen in a single
case (1%) in a series from South India.[23] The resultant bleeding
and the diffi culty in suturing the large inferior iridodialysis
can be frustrating.
A posterior capsular rent in MSICS does not cause a lot of
vitreous loss like the ECCE, as the chamber is closed. However,
aspiration of the epinucleus or sheets of cortex becomes
diffi cult. In the event of capsular rent, dry aspiration can be
done by a Simcoe canula if the rent is small, or by an automated
vitrectomy cu" er if it is larger.[4,24] If the rent is small, the
posterior chambers intraocular lens (PCIOL) can be implanted
in the bag or on the anterior capsular ß ap for a large rent. If the
PCIOL is not stable or the rent is too large, the only option is
to perform a good vitrectomy and put in an anterior chamber
intraocular lens implant (ACIOL). A peripheral bu" on hole
iridectomy must be done in all cases of the posterior capsular
rupture. If there is a slightest doubt about the integrity of the
tunnel, it is always wiser to suture. In case of doubt, it is be" er
to suture and be safe, than hope to be lucky.
Striate keratitis is common during MSICS if enough care
is not taken to place the viscoelastic between the nucleus and
the cornea [Figs. 3 and 4]. The side-port is an excellent route to
ensure this. Delivery is facilitated through a trapezoidal tunnel
[Fig. 5]. Delivery of the nucleus through a small tunnel or
rectangular tunnel can cause damage to the corneal endothelium
[Fig. 6] and long-standing corneal edema, which is recalcitrant
to treatment. The phacofracture,[18,19] phacosandwich,[16,17] and
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 185.96.46.2]
48 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Vol. 57 No. 1
trisection[20] techniques popularized in the 1990s did not gain
wide acceptance, as they involved considerable manipulation
into the anterior chamber with two instruments in addition
to the nucleus. This made the technique very demanding on
expertise and patience, and chances of corneal edema a# er
surgery were very high in the learning phase. It was all the
more diffi cult for very hard and white cataracts, which form
the bulk of work in India.[4,24] The two techniques were easier
for so# er cataracts, but paradoxically the so# er cataract nucleus
could be delivered out without such intense manipulations by
viscoexpression alone.
Postoperative complications
If proper wound integrity was not maintained, shallowing of
the anterior chamber will be seen during the Þ rst dressing.
A cross suture or box suture during learning phase and for
larger tunnels for hard nuclei would be helpful. Wound gape
and iris prolapse in the scleral tunnel increase the chance of
endophthalmitis and astigmatism. Postoperative corneal edema
and potential corneal decompensation are common in poorly
performed MSICS. The trial in Pune had nine (4.5%) cases
of postoperative corneal edema on the Þ rst day in the phaco
arm and four (2%) cases in the MSICS arm.[8] A series of white
cataracts had 65 eyes with corneal edema of >10 descemets folds
and 7% with corneal edema of <10 descemets folds.[23] In the
Nepal study, both groups had an average increase in the central
corneal thickness on the Þ rst day, but the MSICS group had less
corneal edema (P = 0.0039).[13] The edema had decreased to 29
and 4 mm in the phaco and MSICS group, respectively, on the
Þ # h day, and by the third month, it had returned to baseline in
both groups. Most studies of MSICS report a transient corneal
edema, which clears off by the Þ rst week,[8,17,19,20,24,26] but a series
from Ghana had a single case (0.5%) of bullous keratopathy. [26]
A clinical audit of more than 8000 cataract surgeries done in
Pune had found 12 cases of corneal decompensation, all of
which were due to MSICS.[27] However they were performed
by surgeons in the learning phase of MSICS. MSICS should be
done with caution in very old patients, those with very hard
cataracts, and those with not so clear corneas.[4,24,27]
The MSICS involves touching the iris at some point of
time. This may lead to higher incidence of postoperative iritis
and cystoid macular edema.[13,23] Nevertheless, the studies
so far have not shown any diff erence or increase in these
complications.[8,9,25] The series from south India had mild
iritis in 6% and moderate iritis in 3% in the Þ rst postoperative
week. [23] The large self-sealing tunnel may increase the chances
of endophthalmitis, although further studies would be needed
to support or refute the hypothesis. A study from Trichy,
India, had demonstrated no significant anterior chamber
contamination in MSICS.[28]
A large systematic review of posterior capsular opaciÞ cation
(PCO) rates in 1998 had put it at 11.8% at one year and 28.4% at
Þ ve years.[29] Advances in surgical techniques and improvement
in intraocular lens material and design have reduced the rates
of PCO or, at least, have prolonged its onset.[30] The slight
superiority of phacoemulsiÞ cation may be due to the lower
incidence of PCO. In the Nepal study, 20/46 (43.5%) patients
of MSICS had grade 1 PCO, and 8/46 (17.4%) had grade 2 PCO
at the 6-month follow-up. For the phaco group, 7/48 (14.6%)
had grade 1, and none had grade 2 PCO at the 6-month follow-
up.[13] The automated irrigation aspiration and the capsular
polish mode in phaco may give it a small edge over MSICS.
Also, the foldable lenses used in phaco had a square edge as
compared with the polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) lenses
used in MSICS. A good cortex aspiration and polishing the
capsule are necessary a# er MSICS. If a can-opener or V-shaped
capsulorrhexis is used in MSICS rather than the CCC, there may
be increased chances of PCIOL decentration later.
The average astigmatism was 0.7 diopter (D) in the phaco
and 0.88 D in the MSICS (P = 0.12) in the Nepal study.[13] The
Pune study had the mode of astigmatism of 0.5 D for phaco
and 1.5 D for MSICS, though the average was 1.1 and 1.2 D,
respectively.[8] Both the studies had used a foldable lens in the
phaco arm, though diamond knife and silicone lenses were
used in the Nepal study and stainless steel keratome blades and
hydrophilic acrylic lenses in the Pune study. A prospective trial
comparing 3.2-mm incisions with 5.5-mm incisions in Japan
had found the diff erence in astigmatism of 0.3D.[31] A study
from Mumbai, India had found temporal and superotemporal
tunnels to induce less astigmatism as compared with superior
tunnels for MSICS.[32] The mean astigmatism was 1.28 D at
2.9 degrees for superior incisions, 0.20 D at 23 degrees for
superotemporal incisions, and 0.37 D at 90 degrees for temporal
ones. The authors believed that temporal incisions were the
farthest from the visual axis, and gravity and eyelid blink would
create a drag on the superior incisions. They recommended
duplicating the study with a larger sample size.
A study comparing endothelial cell loss and surgically
induced astigmatism among ECCE, MSICS, and phaco had
found the induced astigmatism slightly more in MSICS than
phaco but much less than ECCE.[33] There was no signiÞ cant
difference in the endothelial cell loss among the three
techniques.[33]
Conclusion
MSICS is a safe surgery.[6,8,11-13,23,24] The surgeon has to be extra
diligent in tunnel construction as the tunnel size is larger. An
excellent self-sealing incision is vital for wound architecture
on which the safety and lowered astigmatism potential rests.
The incidence of posterior capsular rent and iridodialysis is
low, and in case of such an eventuality, it is easier to manage
the vitreous loss. In MSICS, the prolapse of nucleus into the
anterior chamber and its delivery through the tunnel involve
Figure 6: Nucleus gets caught in a rectangle tunnel
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 185.96.46.2]
January - February 2009 Gogate: Complications of MSICS 49
manipulations very close to the iris and the cornea. The surgeon
has to be extra careful with these structures, as postoperative
inß ammation and corneal edema can be all too common.
More a" ention needs to be paid to cortical wash and capsular
polishing, as PCO may be the only factor for suboptimal visual
acuity in the future.
Acknowledgments
I am thankful to the editorial board of the Indian Journal of
Ophthalmology for giving me the opportunity to write this
article. Prof. Col. Madan Deshpande helped with his valuable
inputs, and Dr. Roma Deshpande, Dr. Anita Bhargava and
Dr. Prachi Amberdekar with the illustrations.
References
1. Thylefors B, Negrel AD, Pararajasegram R, Dadzie KY. Global data
on blindness. Bull World Health Organ 1995;73:115-21.
2. Minasian DC, Mehera V. 3.8 million blinded by cataract each
year: Projections of the Þ rst epidemiological study of incidence of
cataract blindness in India. Br J Ophthalmol 1990;74:341-3.
3. Jose R. National programme for the control of blindness. Indian J
Comm Health 1997;3:5-9.
4. Basti S, Vasavada AR, Thomas R, Padmanabhan P. Extracapsular
cataract extraction: Surgical techniques. Indian J Ophthalmol
1993;41:19-21.
5. Minassian DC, Rosen P, Dart JK, Reidy A, Desai P, Sidhu M.
Extracapsular cataract extraction compared with small incision
surgery by phacoemulsification: A randomised trial. Br J
Ophthalmol 2001;85:822-9.
6. Gogate PM, Wormald RP, Deshpande M, Deshpande R, Kulkarni
SR. Extracapsular cataract surgery compared with manual
small incision cataract surgery in community eye care se" ing in
Western India: A randomized controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol
2003;87:673-9.
7. Gogate PM, Wormald RP, Deshpande M. Is manual small incision
cataract surgery aff ordable in the developing countries? A cost
comparison with extracapsular cataract extraction. Br J Ophthalmol
2003;87:841-4.
8. Gogate PM, Kulkarni SR, Krishnaiah S, Deshpande RD, Joshi
SA, Palimkar A, et al. Safety and effi cacy of phacoemulsiÞ cation
compared with manual small incision cataract surgery by
a randomized controlled clinical trial: Six weeks results.
Ophthalmology 2005;112:869-74.
9. Gogate PM, Deshpande MD, Nirmalan P. Why do
phacoemulsification? Manual small incision cataract surgery
is almost as effective and more economical. Ophthalmology
2007;114:965-8.
10. Venkatesh R, Muralikrishnan R, Balent LC, Prakash SK, Prajna
V. Outcomes of high volume cataract surgeries in a developing
country. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:1079-83.
11. Natchiar G. Manual small incision cataract surgery: An alternative
technique to instrumental phacoemulsiÞ cation. Madurai: Aravind
Publication; Dec 2000.
12. Henning A, Kumar J, Yorston D, Foster A. Sutureless cataract
surgery with nucleus extraction: Outcome of a prospective study
in Nepal. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:266-70.
13. Ruit S, Tabin G, Chang D, Bajracharya L, Kline DC, Richheimer R,
et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of phacoemulsiÞ cation
vs. manual sutureless small incision extracapsular cataract surgery
in Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:32-8.
14. Wormald RP. PhacoemulsiÞ cation vs. small incision manual cataract
surgery: An expert trial. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:143-4.
15. Rao SK, Lam DS. A simple technique for nucleus extraction in
capsular bag in manual small incision cataract surgery. Indian J
Ophthalmol 2005;53:214-5.
16. Fry LL. The phacosandwich technique. In: Rozakis GW, Anis AY,
et al., editors. Cataract surgery: Alternative small incision
techniques. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc; 1990. p. 71-110.
17. Bayramlar H, Cekic O, Totan Y. Manual tunnel incision extra
capsular cataract extraction using the sandwich technique. J
Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:312-5.
18. Kansas P. Phacofracture. In: Rozakis GW, Anis AY, et al, editors.
Cataract surgery: Alternative small incision techniques. Thorofare,
NJ: Slack Inc.; 1990. p. 45-70.
19. Duch Mestres F, Mathieu A, Torres F, Lillo J, Castilla M. Intra-
operative complications of planned extra capsular cataract
extraction versus manual nucleofragmentation. J Cataract Refract
Surg 1996;22:1113-5.
20. Hepsen IF, Cekic O, Bayramlar H, Totan Y. Small incision
extracapsular cataract surgery with manual phaco trisection. J
Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:1048-51.
21. Blumenthal M, Ashkenazi I, Fogel R, Assia EI. The gliding nucleus.
J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19:435-7.
22. Maske A, Parker T, Gogate PM, Deshpande M, Adenwalla A,
Verappa K. Comparision of subtenon anesthesia versus peribulbar
block for manual small incision cataract surgery. Indian J
Ophthalmol 2005;53:255-9.
23. Venkatesh R, Das M, Prasanth S, Muralikrishnan R. Manual small
incision cataract surgery in eyes with white cataracts. Indian J
Ophthalmol 2005;53:173-6.
24. Thomas R, Kuriakose T, George R. Towards achieving small
incision cataract surgery 99.8% of the time. Indian J Ophthalmol
2000;48:145-51.
25. Venkatesh R, Tan CS, Kumar TT, Ravindran RD. Safety and effi cacy
of manual small incision cataract surgery for phacolytic glaucoma.
Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:279-81.
26. Guzek JP, Ching A. Manual small incision extracapsular cataract
surgery in Ghana, West Africa. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:57-
64.
27. Gogate PM, Deshpande M, Maske A, Jagdale SJ. Surgical audit at
HV Desai Eye Hospital, Pune: Causes of poor post-operative visual
outcome. Community Eye Health 2004;17:53-4.
28. Parmar P, Salman A, Kaliamurthy J, Prasanth DA, Thomas
PA, Jesudasan CA. Anterior chamber contamination during
phacoemulsiÞ cation and manual small incision cataract surgery.
Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:1160-1.
29. Shaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A systemic
overview of the incidence of posterior capsular opaciÞ cation.
Ophthalmology 1998;105:1213-21.
30. Wilson E M, Trivedi RH. The ongoing ba" le against posterior
capsular opaciÞ cation. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:555-6.
31. Oshika T, Nagahara K, Yaguchi S, Emi K, Takenaka H, Tsuboi S,
et al. Three year prospective randomized evaluation of intraocular
lens implantation through 3.2 and 5.5 mm incisions. J Cataract
Refract Surg 1998;24:509-14.
32. Gokhale NS, Sawhney S. Reduction in astigmatism in manual
MSICS through change in astigmatism site. Indian J Ophthalmol
2005;53:201-3.
33. George R, Rapauliha P, Sripriya AV, Rajesh PS, Vahan PV, Praveen
S. Comparision of endothelial cell loss and surgically induced
astigmatism following conventional extracapsular cataract surgery,
manual small incision surgery and phacoemulsiÞ cation. Ophthal
Epidemiol 2005;12:293-7.
Source of Support: Nil, Confl ict of Interest: None declared.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijo.in on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, IP: 185.96.46.2]
