Evidence Hub

Phaco-Chop versus Divide-and-Conquer in Patients Who Underwent Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jaime Guedes, S. Pereira, D. Amaral, L. Hespanhol, A. C. Faneli, Ricardo Danilo Chagas Oliveira, Denise J. Mora-Paez, B. M. Fontes

Clinical Ophthalmology, 2024

837 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

Background Cataract surgery is one of the most frequently performed eye surgeries worldwide, and among several techniques, phacoemulsification has become the standard of care due to its safety and efficiency. We evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of two phacoemulsification techniques: phaco-chop and divide-and-conquer. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective and retrospective studies that compared the phaco-chop technique over the divide-and-conquer technique and reported the outcomes of (1) Endothelial cell count change (ECC); (2) Ultrasound time (UST); (3) Cumulated dissipated energy (CDE); (4) Surgery time; and (5) Phacoemulsification time (PT). Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for outcomes with high heterogeneity. Results Nine final studies, (6 prospective RCTs and 3 observational), comprising 837 patients undergoing phacoemulsification. 435 (51.9%) underwent the phaco-chop technique, and 405 (48.1%) underwent divide-and-conquer. Overall, the phaco-chop technique was associated with several advantages: a significant difference in ECC change postoperatively (Mean Difference [MD] −221.67 Cell/mm2; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] −401.68 to −41.66; p < 0.02; I2=73%); a shorter UST (MD −51.16 sec; 95% CI −99.4 to −2.79; p = 0.04; I2=98%); reduced CDE (MD −8.68 units; 95% CI −12.76 to −4.60; p < 0.01; I2=84%); a lower PT (MD −55.09 sec; 95%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 837 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free