Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Guest Editorial
Innovation
Media and News
Original Article
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Guest Editorial
Innovation
Media and News
Original Article
Review Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Guest Editorial
Innovation
Media and News
Original Article
Review Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial
3 (
1
); 1-1
doi:
10.25259/GJCSRO_23_2024

Manual small incision cataract surgery – need for literature backup

Department of Ophthalmology, Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding author: B. K. Nayak, Department of Ophthalmology, Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. editor@gjcsro.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Nayak BK. Manual small incision cataract surgery – need for literature backup. Glob J Cataract Surg Res Ophthalmol. 2024;3:1. doi: 10.25259/GJCSRO_23_2024

Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) has not received its due recognition. There are a large number of surgeons who perform this surgery as their first choice. The much lower cost compared to phacoemulsification with equally comparable results makes MSICS the preferred choice of surgery for tackling a large number of cases of blindness, due to cataracts in the community setup.

Those who are experts in MSICS claim this surgery is at par with phacoemulsification. However, enough publications are warranted. The article by Adeogun, et al. in this issue is a welcome trend that MSICS surgeons are also getting inclined towards research.[1]

There is enough scope for performing research related to MSICS. I would invite surgeons to perform head-to-head comparisons of MSICS vis-à-vis phacoemulsification regarding visual outcomes, surgically induced astigmatism, resultant astigmatism, endothelial cell count, surgical time, recovery time, and discomfort in the post-operative period. Since a large number of MSICS are performed, I would suggest that surgeons document their surgical details including the outcomes diligently. Later on, these data can be clubbed together for analysis.

I am quite confident that the International Society of Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgeons will strengthen the value of MSICS by promoting more research. The Global Journal of Cataract Surgery and Research in Ophthalmology provides great opportunities for researchers for the publication.

References

  1. , , . Comparison of pupil dilation in manual small incision cataract surgery using topical versus intracameral mydriatic agents-a randomised controlled trial. Glob J Cataract Surg Res Ophthalmol. 2024;3:4-9.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
140

PDF downloads
6
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections