Sir,
I read with interest the article by Hennig et al1 describing the outcomes of high-volume phacoemulsification in Nepal. Although patients’ expectations of cataract surgery will undoubtedly increase in future, it is important to remember that more than 18 million people in developing nations are blinded by cataracts, with the number increasing each year.
Studies have shown that the percentage of patients with good visual outcomes with phacoemulsification is comparable to that of manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS).2, 3 The reported cost for consumables performing phacoemulsification with a rigid intraocular lens (IOL) was US$0.50 more than MSICS.1 However, this cost differential can become quite significant when the total volume of cases is considered. For the 8955 phacoemulsification surgeries performed in this series, an additional $4477.50 could have been saved with MSICS, which can be used for consumables for more than 1000 additional patients. In addition, the authors rightly point out that this cost does not take into account the cost of the phaco machine and its maintenance. In contrast, MSICS is considerably less dependent on expensive equipment and costs less in consumables.2, 3, 4
It would be interesting to know the density of the cataracts, whether sutures were required to close the 5 mm phaco wound, and the resultant astigmatism. It has been shown that MSICS causes less postoperative oedema,2, 3 which may be quite significant in phacoemulsification, depending on the density of the nucleus. The majority of patients in underserved areas of developing countries usually present only when the cataracts are quite advanced. One potential advantage of phacoemulsification may be the slightly lower amount of surgically induced astigmatism3, 5 but a 5 mm wound may cause more astigmatism than with a foldable IOL.
In summary, I feel that there are many factors that should be considered when using phacoemulsification in a high-volume setting in developing regions, and a prospective comparative study would go a long way to answering these questions. Nevertheless, I congratulate the authors on their results and commend them for their good work in Nepal and India.
References
Hennig A, Singh S, Winter I, Yorston D . Can phaco be a cost-effective solution to cataract blindness? Costs and outcomes in Nepal. Eye 2010; 24: 1104.
Ruit S, Tabin G, Chang D, Bajracharya L, Kline DC, Richheimer W et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of phacoemulsification vs manual sutureless small-incision extracapsular cataract surgery in Nepal. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 143: 32–38.
Gogate PM, Kulkarni SR, Krishnaiah S, Deshpande RD, Joshi SA, Palimkar A et al. Safety and efficacy of phacoemulsification compared with manual small-incision cataract surgery by a randomized controlled clinical trial: six-week results. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 869–874.
Muralikrishnan R, Venkatesh R, Prajna NV, Frick KD . Economic cost of cataract surgery procedures in an established eye care centre in Southern India. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2004; 11: 369–380.
George R, Rupauliha P, Sripriya AV, Rajesh PS, Vahan PV, Praveen S . Comparison of endothelial cell loss and surgically induced astigmatism following conventional extracapsular cataract surgery, manual small-incision surgery and phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005; 12: 293–297.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author has no financial or proprietary interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, C. Cost effectiveness of phacoemulsification in developing countries. Eye 24, 1827–1828 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2010.150
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2010.150
This article is cited by
-
Response to Dr Colin Tan
Eye (2010)