Surgical interventions for age-related cataract.

BACKGROUND: Cataract accounts for 50% of blindness globally and remains the leading cause of visual impairment in all regions of the world, despite improvements in surgical outcomes (WHO 2005). This number is expected to rise due to an aging population and increase in life expectancy. Although cataracts are not preventable, their surgical treatment is one of the most cost-effective interventions in healthcare. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different surgical interventions for age-related cataract. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE up to July 2006, NRR Issue 3 2005, the reference lists of identified trials and we contacted investigators and experts in the field for details of published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Where appropriate, risk ratios, odds ratios and weighted mean differences were summarised after assessing heterogeneity between the studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 trials that randomised a total of 9627 people. Phacoemulsification gave a better visual outcome than extracapsular surgery but similar average cost per procedure in Europe but not in poorer countries. Extracapsular surgery with posterior chamber lens implant and ICCE with or without an anterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implant gave acceptable visual outcomes but extracapsular surgery had less complications. Manual small incision surgery provides better visual outcome than ECCE but slightly inferior unaided visual acuity compared to phacoemulsification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence from seven RCTs that phacoemulsification gives a better outcome than ECCE with sutures. We also found evidence that ECCE with a posterior chamber lens implant provides better visual outcome than ICCE with aphakic glasses. The long term effect of posterior capsular opacification (PCO) needs to be assessed in larger populations. The data also suggests that ICCE with an anterior chamber lens implant is an effective alternative to ICCE with aphakic glasses, with similar safety. Phacoemulsification provides the best visual outcomes but will only be accessible to the poorer countries if the cost of phacoemulsification and foldable IOLs decrease. Manual small incision cataract surgery provides early visual rehabilitation and comparable visual outcome to PHACO. It has better visual outcomes than ECCE and can be used in any clinic that is currently carrying out ECCE with IOL. Further research from developing regions are needed to compare the cost and longer term outcomes of these procedures e.g. PCO and corneal endothelial cell damage.

Surgical interventions for age-related cataract.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the major cause of global blindness, accounting for 40 to 80% of all blindness in developing countries. The number of people blind from cataract is expected to rise due to the changing age distribution and increasing life expectancy. There is currently no proven intervention to prevent cataract and surgery is the only form of treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different surgical interventions for age-related cataract. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register - CENTRAL/CCTR, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register (Cochrane Library Issue 3 2001), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2001), EMBASE (1980 to September 2001), the reference lists of identified trials, and we contacted investigators and experts in the field for details of published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical treatment for people with age-related cataract. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Where appropriate, relative risks, odds ratios and weighted mean differences were summarised after assessing heterogeneity between the studies. We used a fixed effect model due to the low number of trials in each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six trials that randomised a total of 7828 people. Phacoemulsification gave a better visual outcome than extracapsular surgery and gave a similar average cost per procedure in one trial conducted in the UK. Extracapsular surgery with posterior chamber lens implant and intracapsular surgery with or without an anterior chamber intraocular lens implant gave acceptable visual outcomes at 12 to 24 months after surgery. In three large trials in south Asia, best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/60 ranged from 0.5 to 4%. Higher rates of poor outcome were observed in a multicentre study with 19 surgeons compared to a single-centre study with two surgeons. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence from one randomised controlled trial that phacoemulsification gives a better visual outcome than extracapsular extraction with sutures. However, this trial was conducted in a developed country specialised hospital setting and extrapolation to other settings must be made with caution. This review also found evidence that extracapsular cataract extraction with a posterior chamber lens implant provides better visual outcome than intracapsular extraction with aphakic glasses. This finding is also based on the results of a single trial. The long term effects of posterior capsular opacification need to be assessed in larger populations. The data in the review suggest that intracapsular extraction with an anterior chamber lens implant is an effective alternative to intracapsular extraction with aphakic glasses, with similar safety. Further data from developing regions are needed to compare all aspects of intraocular lens surgery with the three main surgical procedures - intracapsular extraction with an anterior chamber lens, extracapsular surgery with a posterior chamber lens with or without sutures.

Rapid epidemiologic assessment of cataract blindness. The Aravind Rapid Epidemiologic Assessment Staff.

A major constraint to obtaining reliable information about blindness and its causes in developing countries is the limited availability of ophthalmologists for diagnosis in population-based surveys. This study in rural south India assessed the feasibility of using non-ophthalmologists to make diagnoses in a population-based survey. Ten men in their early twenties with 12 years of schooling were recruited and trained as ophthalmic assistants through a six week course in basic ophthalmology. All people aged 40 and older in households in 24 villages were enumerated and invited to have an eye examination. At a central site, 1309 subjects were independently examined by an ophthalmologist and two different ophthalmic assistants. Ophthalmic assistant cataract diagnosis is both sensitive and specific relative to the ophthalmologist's diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were used to adjust prevalence estimates obtained from ophthalmic assistant examinations conducted at the central site as well as at the doorstep of sample households. The findings indicate that epidemiologic assessment of cataract blindness can be completed using non-ophthalmologists to diagnose cataract.