Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 29, 2022DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v22i1.72Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Cataract surgery outcomes: comparison of the extracapsular cataract extraction and manual small incision cataract surgery techniques
Abstract
Background: Blindness and visual impairment are public health problems and constitute an important socio-economic burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding the outcomes of cataract surgery will improve our knowledge of risk factors for poor outcomes. Previous studies have focused exclusively on the phacoemulsification technique with limited attention to the extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) techniques.
Objectives: To compare the cataract surgery outcomes between the ECCE and MSICS techniques.
Methods: The study was an observational research design that used the LogMAR visual acuity (VA) chart, subjective refraction, slit lamp and ophthalmoscope to collect data. The participants were followed for a period of six-weeks post-surgery and outcomes were recorded. Data were presented using frequencies, percentages and means ± standard deviation.
Results: The sample included 101 participants, with a mean age of 66.32 ± 15.99 years. Fifty and 51 participants had undergone the ECCE and MSICS techniques respectively. Overall, one-hundred participants had poor pre-surgery VA and subjective refractions were generally not possible due to the severity of cataracts present. The mean aided post-surgery VA was 0.31 LogMAR and 0.13 LogMAR in the ECCE and MSICS groups respectively (p < 0.001). The mean post-surgery refractive astigmatism was similar in the ECCE (-2.06 D) and MSICS (-1.80 D) groups (p = 0.110). The spherical equivalence was approximately -0.50 D higher in the MSICS group, but not statistically significant (p = 0.330). Approximately one out of every five participants (n = 21) had post-surgery ocular complications such as corneal opacity and haziness as well as posterior capsular absence.
Conclusions: The MSICS technique showed better post-surgery outcomes than the ECCE technique.
Keywords: Cataract surgery outcomes; extracapsular cataract surgery; manual small incision cataract surgery; ocular complications.
