Clinical Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Nasal Clear Corneal Incision: Safety and Efficacy

Song Minkyung; Jin Hyoung Park; Jae Yong Kim; Myoung Joon Kim; Hungwon Tchah

doi:10.3341/jkos.2017.58.2.140

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.58(2) > 1010688

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Minkyung, Park, Kim, Kim, and Tchah: Clinical Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Nasal Clear Corneal Incision: Safety and Efficacy

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2017;58(2):140-146.

Published online: 8 September 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.2.140

Clinical Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Nasal Clear Corneal Incision: Safety and Efficacy

Song Minkyung, M.D.¹, Jin Hyoung Park, M.D., PhD², Jae Yong Kim, M.D., PhD¹, Myoung Joon Kim, M.D., PhD¹, Hungwon Tchah, M.D., PhD^1,

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Asan Institute for Life Science, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Hungwon Tchah, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Asan Medical Center, #88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea Tel: 82-2-3010-3674, Fax: 82-2-470-6440 E-mail: hwtchah@amc.seoul.kr

Received 6 October 20167 December 2016 Accepted 26 January 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the safety and efficacy of cataract surgery using nasal clear corneal incision (CCI) versus superior or tem-poral CCIs in Korean patients.

Methods

A retrospective comparative study was conducted. Patients underwent cataract surgery using CCI performed by 3 sur-geons between January 2012 and December 2013.The patients were divided into the following 3 groups based on CCI direction: nasal CCIs (group I), superior CCIs (Group II), and temporal CCIs (Group III). To assess usability, surgically induced astigma-tism (SIA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), keratometry reading, and refractive errors at base-line and 1 month after surgery were compared. Operation times were compared between groups. To assess safety, intraoperative complications and wound stability were compared.

Results

A total of 1,374 eyes (Group I, 283 eyes; Group II, 587 eyes; Group III, 504 eyes) were included in the present study. The SIA was not significantly different among the 3 groups. The postoperative mean BCVA, IOP, keratometry reading and spher-ical equivalent as well as the mean operation times were not significantly different between the 3 groups (14.04 ± 3.79 vs. 13.80 ± 3.27 vs. 13.80 ± 3.70; p = 0.473). The rate of intraocular complications and incidence of corneal wound suture were not sig-nificantly different between the 3 groups (1.7% vs. 3.2% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.378).

Conclusions

The safety and efficacy of cataract surgery using nasal CCI were not significantly different compared with the use of temporal or superior CCI. Our results showed that cataract surgery using nasal CCI can be performed safely and conveniently in Korean patients.

Keywords: Cataract, Nasal incision, Safety, Usability

References

1. Dewey S, Beiko G, Braga-Mele R. . Microincisions in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:1549–57.

2. Alió J, Rodríguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M.Outcomes of mi-croincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:1997–2003.

3. Alió JL, Agdeppa MC, Rodríguez-Prats JL. . Factors influenc-ing corneal biomechanical changes after microincision cataract surgery and standard coaxial phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:890–7.

4. Barequet IS, Yu E, Vitale S. . Astigmatism outcomes of hori-zontal temporal versus nasal clear corneal incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:418–23.

5. Leaming DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS mem-bers--1997 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:552–61.

6. Amesbury EC, Miller KM. Correction of astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009; 20:19–24.

7. Jiang Y, Le Q, Yang J, Lu Y. Changes in corneal astigmatism and high order aberrations after clear corneal tunnel phacoemulsifica-tion guided by corneal topography. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22((9 Suppl)):S1083–8.

8. Gonçalves FP, Rodrigues AC.Phacoemulsification using clear cor-nea incision in steepest meridian. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007; 70:225–8.

9. Altan-Yaycioglu R, Akova YA, Akca S. . Effect on astigma-tism of the location of clear corneal incision in phacoemulsifica-tion of cataract. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:515–8.

10. Pakravan M, Nikkhah H, Yazdani S. . Astigmatic outcomes of temporal versus nasal clear corneal phacoemulsification. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2009; 4:79–83.

11. Kohnen S, Neuber R, Kohnen T. Effect of temporal and nasal un-sutured limbal tunnel incisions on induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:821–5.

12. Yoon JH, Kim KH, Lee JY, Nam DH. Surgically induced astigma-tism after 3.0 mm temporal and nasal clear corneal incisions in bi-lateral cataract surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013; 61:645–8.

13. Holladay JT, Cravy TV, Koch DD. Calculating the surgically in-duced refractive change following ocular surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:429–43.

14. Tejedor J, Pérez-Rodríguez JA.Astigmatic change induced by 2.8-mm corneal incisions for cataract surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50:989–94.

15. Park CY, Chuck RS, Channa P. . The effect of corneal anterior surface eccentricity on astigmatism after cataract surgery. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2011; 42:408–15.

16. Jang YJ, Alfanta EM. Rhinoplasty in the Asian nose. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2014; 22:357–77.

Figure 1.

Patient groups according to incision locations. The incision locations were selected to correspond to the steep axis of the corneal astigmatism. Gray dotted lines indicate the main clear corneal incision. Black lines indicate the side port incision.

Figure 2.

Mean changes in ocular parameters. No changes in these parameters, except for mean spherical equivalent (SE), were sig-nificantly different ( p > 0.05). (A) Changes in the mean SE. The amounts of changes between groups were significantly different ( p = 0.000). (B) Changes in mean defocus equivalent. (C) Changes in mean keratometric (K) power. (D) Changes in mean kerato-metric cylindrical (K cyl) power. (E) Changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). (F) Changes in intraocular pressure (IOP). DE = defocus equivalent; Preop = pre-operation; Postop = post-operation.

Table 1.

Preoperative patient demographics and ocular parameters

	Group I (n = 283)	Group II (n = 587)	Group III (n = 504)	Total (n = 1,374)
Age (years)	61.17 ± 12.55	67.10 ± 10.80	67.42 ± 10.06	65.99 ± 11.19
	(6 to 86)	(12 to 91)	(31 to 93)	(6 to 93)
Sex (n, %)
Male	121 (42.8)	260 (44.3)	222 (44.0)	603 (43.9)
Female	162 (57.2)	327 (55.7)	282 (56.0)	771 (56.1)
Side (n, %)
Right	148 (52.3)	587 (100)	0	729 (53.1)
Left	135 (47.7)	0	504 (100)	645 (46.9)
SE (diopters)	–1.30 ± 3.67	–0.51 ± 2.87	–0.37 ± 2.84	–0.61 ± 3.06
	(–15.00 to 3.63)	(–14.50 to 5.87)	(–14.38 to 5.00)	(–15.00 to 5.87)
DE (diopters)	3.12 ± 3.33	2.68 ± 2.47	2.53 ± 2.35	2.71 ± 2.64
	(0.00 to 16.25)	(0.00 to 15.50)	(0.00 to 15.25)	(0.00 to 16.25)
Mean K (diopters)	43.97 ± 1.79	44.00 ± 1.66	44.01 ± 1.50	44.00 ± 1.63
	(34.86 to 50.38)	(34.25 to 48.63)	(37.75 to 48.13)	(34.44 to 50.38)
BCVA (logMAR)	0.26 ± 0.31	0.28 ± 0.33	0.25 ± 0.26	0.27 ± 0.30
	(0.00 to 1.92)	(0.00 to 2.75)	(0.00 to 1.92)	(0.00 to 2.75)
IOP (mmHg)	15.46 ± 3.07	15.29 ± 3.42	15.58 ± 3.48	15.44 ± 3.38
	(8 to 26)	(8 to 27)	(8 to 27)	(8 to 27)

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range) or n (%).

SE = spherical equivalence; DE = defocus equivalent; mean K = mean keratometric value; BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; IOP = in-traocular pressure.

Table 2.

Postoperative safety and usability outcomes: intraoperative complications, SIA, incidence of corneal wound sutures

	Group I (n = 283)	Group II (n = 587)	Group III (n = 504)	Total (n = 1,374)	p-value
Complication	6 (2.1)	4 (0.7)	8 (1.6)	18 (1.3)	0.171^*
Suture	9 (3.2)	10 (1.7)	12 (2.4)	31 (2.3)	0.378^*
Op. time (min)	13.80 ± 3.27	14.04 ± 3.79	13.80 ± 3.70	13.90 ± 3.66	0.473^†
	(9 to 25)	(9 to 31)	(9 to 29)	(9 to 31)
BCVA (logMAR)	0.09 ± 0.21	0.10 ± 0.22	0.09 ± 0.17	0.09 ± 0.20	0.407^†
	(0.00 to 1.92)	(0.00 to 2.75)	(0.00 to 1.92)	(0.00 to 2.75)
IOP (mmHg)	14.00 ± 3.07	14.02 ± 3.33	14.08 ± 3.22	14.03 ± 3.23	0.927^†
	(8 to 25)	(8 to 26)	(8 to 25)	(8 to 27)

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range) or n (%).

SIA = surgically induced astigmatism; Complication = intraoperative complication; Suture = incidence of corneal wound suture; Op. time = mean operation time (min); BCVA = best corrected visual acuity; IOP = intraocular pressure.

^* Chi-square test

^† One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Table 3.

Postoperative efficacy outcomes: ocular parameters

	Group I (n = 283)	Group II (n = 587)	Group III (n = 504)	Total (n = 1,374)	p-value^*
SE (diopters)	–0.95 ± 1.21	–0.76 ± 1.04	–0.75 ± 1.02	–0.80 ± 1.07	0.025
	(–5.75 to 1.00)	(–5.25 to 1.63)	(–4.90 to 1.13)	(–5.75 to 1.63)
DE (diopters)	1.73 ± 1.32	1.69 ± 1.15	1.57 ± 1.11	1.65± 1.17	0.115
	(0.00 to 6.00)	(0.00 to 6.75)	(0.00 to 6.55)	(0.00 to 6.75)
Mean K (diopters)	43.96 ± 1.67	43.99 ± 1.69	44.02 ± 1.49	44.00 ± 1.61	0.851
	(35.13 to 48.75)	(34.25 to 48.63)	(37.75 to 48.13)	(34.25 to 48.79)
SIA (diopters)	0.55 ± 0.41	0.51 ± 0.42	0.49 ± 0.40	0.51 ± 0.41	0.153
	(0.00 to 1.98)	(0.00 to 1.98)	(0.00 to 1.90)	(0.00 to 1.98)

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range).

SE = spherical equivalence; DE = defocus equivalent; Mean K = mean keratometric value; SIA = surgically induced astigmatism.

^* One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

TOOLS

Similar articles