Minimally invasive capsulorhexis is an incision in the anterior capsule in the peripheral zone for cataract extraction. It allows reduction of the size of the lesion, ensuring a better transparency of the visual axis, preserving the capsule almost intact and a layer of lenticular epithelial cells. The procedure could have a potential regenerative effect of the lens in a natural way. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive capsulorhexis to promote lens regeneration in children's cataracts.
This technology was identified by the early Awareness and Alert System, “SINTESIS-new technologies” of Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS) Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII). An early assessment was conducted. The searched databases were: PubMed, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), and Cochrane Library. Clinical studies using the procedure published in any language until 29 September 2017 were reviewed.
An open-label, randomized trial in pediatric cataract patients (age: 0–2 years) was retrieved. Twelve patients underwent minimally invasive capsulorhexis, while twenty-five patients received the standard treatment. Regarding efficacy, a transparent regenerated biconvex lens was found in 100 percent of eyes three months after surgery, but wasn't found in the control group. 100 percent of capsular openings healed within one month after surgery in the experimental group, but not in the control group. Both groups increased their visual acuity parameters without significant differences. Regarding safety, children receiving the standard technique had a higher incidence of corneal edema (eight percent in the intervention vs thirty percent in the control group), anterior chamber inflammation (seventeen percent vs seventy-four percent), additional laser capsulotomy (zero percent vs eighty-four percent) and increased visual axis opacification (four percent vs eighty-four percent).
Minimally invasive capsulorhexis in children's cataracts seems to be a promising new procedure. Preliminary efficacy results were good and safety profile was better than standard treatment. However, it would be necessary to continue further studies to confirm these results.