BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Malik, A R
Right arrow Articles by Gilbert, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Malik, A R
Right arrow Articles by Gilbert, C
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;87:937-940
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group


WORLD VIEW

Visual outcome after high volume cataract surgery in Pakistan

A R Malik1, Z A Qazi2, C Gilbert3

1 Moorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, London ECIV 2PD, UK
2 LRBT Hospital, 436 A-1, Township, Lahore, Pakistan
3 Department of Infectious Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel Street, London WCIE 7HT, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Amber R Malik, Moorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, London ECIV 2PD, UK;
amber_r_malik{at}hotmail.com


ABSTRACT
Aim: To determine the visual outcome and factors influencing visual outcome after cataract surgery in an urban charity hospital in Pakistan.

Methods: A series of selected outpatients were examined who had undergone cataract surgery in the preceding 24 months.

Results: 181 patients aged 45–82 years were examined. The type of cataract operations they had had were extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) only in 50% (91), phacoemulsification (phaco) only in 11% (20), ECCE with intraocular lens (IOL) in 17% (31), and phaco with IOL in 22% (39). At presentation, 49.7% (90) had poor functional vision; after refraction 68% (123) had a good visual outcome. Functional vision in eyes undergoing ECCE with IOL was good in 77% (22) and with phaco with IOL in 71.8% (28). After refraction a higher proportion of eyes with IOL surgery (93%) had a good outcome than those with non-IOL surgery (53%). Uncorrected refractive error, present in 75.5% (68), was the commonest cause of poor functional vision.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain good results with IOL surgery in the developing world. Increasing cataract surgery with IOL implantation should reduce the number of eyes with poor functional vision after cataract surgery. More attention should be directed towards ensuring that successful outcomes are indeed being realised by continued visual monitoring postoperatively.


Keywords: visual outcome; cataract surgery; Pakistan




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
B Dineen, R R A Bourne, Z Jadoon, S P Shah, M A Khan, A Foster, C E Gilbert, M D Khan, and on behalf of the Pakistan National Eye Survey Stud
Causes of blindness and visual impairment in Pakistan. The Pakistan national blindness and visual impairment survey
Br. J. Ophthalmol., August 1, 2007; 91(8): 1005 - 1010.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
R. Bourne, B. Dineen, Z. Jadoon, P. S Lee, A. Khan, G. J Johnson, A. Foster, and D. Khan
Outcomes of cataract surgery in Pakistan: results from The Pakistan National Blindness and Visual Impairment Survey
Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2007; 91(4): 420 - 426.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
P Gouws, M Merriman, S Goethals, P R Simcock, R J Greenwood, and G Wright
Cystoid macular oedema with trypan blue use
Br. J. Ophthalmol., October 1, 2004; 88(10): 1348 - 1349.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2003 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.