Comparison of Clinical Results between 2.2 mm and 2.8 mm Incision Cataract Surgery Using Ellips Ultrasound

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Introduction of phacoemulsification and development of foldable artificial lens has facilitated smaller incisions, even micro-coaxial incisions. However, there have been several studies showing that micro-coaxial incision has no benefit compared with the conventional small incision method. Cases where Ellips ultrasound was used have not yet been reported. Therefore, we compared the postoperative results between 2.2-mm and 2.8-mm incision groups using Ellips ultrasound. METHODS: Among 49 eyes receiving cataract surgery from March, 2012 to August, 2012, 27 eyes in the 2.2-mm group and 22 eyes in the 2.8-mm group were examined to obtain cumulated dissipated energy (CDE), use of balanced salt solution (BSS), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), corneal endothelial cell count (ECC), corneal thickness at center and incision site, and keratometric astigmatism before and after surgery. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2.2-mm and 2.8-mm groups in CDE (2.5 +/- 2.0 vs. 2.5 +/- 2.3) and use of BSS (188 +/- 127 vs. 138 +/- 43 mL) during the surgery, BCVA (-0.45 +/- 0.62 vs. -0.55 +/- 0.79 log MAR), ECC (-178 +/- 210 vs. -99 +/- 114 cells/mm2), corneal thickness at center (23 +/- 23 vs. 27 +/- 23 microm) and incision site (24 +/- 19 vs. 27 +/- 19 microm) and keratometric astigmatism before and after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A 2.2-mm micro-coaxial incision using Ellips ultrasound showed no statistically significant differences in BCVA, ECC, corneal thickness at center and incision site, and keratometric astigmatism compared with 2.8-mm small incision.