Clinical efficacy of modified phacoemulsification in the treatment of high myopia with cataract: a systematic review and meta-analysis

1Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: To use meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical effect of modified phacoemulsification in the treatment of high myopia with cataract. Methods: The English language databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, and Chinese language databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang were searched for relevant studies published from January 2010 to May 2021. The participants were divided into 2 groups according to different treatment methods; the control group mainly used traditional phacoemulsification, while the treatment group used modified phacoemulsification. The differences in the postoperative complication rate, visual acuity recovery rate at 1 month after surgery, and corneal endothelial cell count at 1 and 3 months after surgery were analyzed. Results: A total of 12 articles were included. The results of comparison confirmed that the treatment group was superior to the control group in the postoperative complication rate, visual acuity recovery rate at 1 month after surgery, and corneal endothelial cell count at 1 and 3 months after surgery. Discussion: Both treatment methods are effective, but modified phacoemulsification has greater advantages in reducing the damage of corneal endothelial cells and postoperative complications and in improving patient prognosis. Additionally, modified phacoemulsification in the treatment of high myopia with cataract can achieve better visual acuity recovery than traditional phacoemulsification, suggesting a high value for clinical application.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Qi, J., Yuan, J., Zhou, Y., Guo, R., Zhang, Y., Dai, Q., & Liu, Y. (2021). Clinical efficacy of modified phacoemulsification in the treatment of high myopia with cataract: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Palliative Medicine, 10(10), 10556–10566. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-2215

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free