ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Cataract surgery without a phacoemulsification device during a humanitarian mission in benin: outcomes of manual small-incision cataract surgery and extracapsular cataract extraction.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo describe preoperative triage and compare early postoperative complications after manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) performed during a humanitarian mission in Benin, where no phacoemulsification device was available.
methodsMedical records and operative reports from 1,280 individuals examined during a humanitarian cataract mission in Porto-Novo, Benin, between November 25 and December 6, 2024, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were triaged according to cataract-related best-corrected visual acuity, systemic risk factors, and ocular findings. After exclusion of patients with capillary glucose > 300 mg/dL, blood pressure > 200/120 mmHg, or preoperative retinal detachment, 287 patients were considered suitable for surgery and 125 underwent surgery. Patients were classified by technique as MSICS (n = 79) or ECCE (n = 46). Postoperative complications documented on postoperative day 1 or during the mission were compared using two-sided Fisher exact tests.
resultsAmong the 125 operated patients, 79 underwent MSICS and 46 underwent ECCE. Aphakia occurred in 6 patients (4.8%), IOL dislocation in 3 (2.4%), marked endothelial edema in 11 (8.8%), postoperative IOP elevation in 12 (9.6%), and corneal suture dehiscence in 1 (0.8%). Marked endothelial edema was more frequent after ECCE than MSICS (8/46 [17.4%] vs. 3/79 [3.8%]; p = 0.018). No significant between-group differences were observed for aphakia (p = 0.192), IOL dislocation (p = 0.554), IOP elevation (p = 0.533), or corneal suture dehiscence (p = 0.368). No cases of IOL drop into the vitreous cavity, nuclear drop, intravitreal hemorrhage, toxic anterior segment syndrome, or endophthalmitis were observed in either group.
conclusionIn settings without a phacoemulsification device, MSICS and ECCE can be performed during humanitarian missions when experienced surgeons, careful preoperative triage, and appropriate postoperative assessment are available. MSICS may offer practical advantages where follow-up is limited because it generally avoids routine corneal suture removal. Because technique and surgeon were not independently separable in this nonrandomized study, the observed differences should not be interpreted as purely technique-related.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.