five

Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

收藏
NIAID Data Ecosystem2026-03-09 收录
下载链接:
https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_Coaxial_Microincision_Cataract_Surgery_versus_Standard_Coaxial_Small_Incision_Cataract_Surgery_A_Meta_Analysis_of_Randomized_Controlled_Trials_/1635083
下载链接
链接失效反馈
官方服务:
资源简介:
Background 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). Methods 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). Results 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). Conclusions 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.
创建时间:
2016-01-18
5,000+
优质数据集
54 个
任务类型
进入经典数据集
二维码
社区交流群

面向社区/商业的数据集话题

二维码
科研交流群

面向高校/科研机构的开源数据集话题

数据驱动未来

携手共赢发展

商业合作