CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156Intraocular Surgery and LensesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Do Phacoemulsification? Manual Small-Incision Cataract Surgery Is Almost as Effective, but Less Expensive

Gogate, Parikshit, Deshpande, Madan, Nirmalan, Praveen K.·2007·Ophthalmology
DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.057
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To compare the cost of phacoemulsification with foldable lenses with that of manual small-incision cataract surgery (SICS) in a hospital setting.Design Average cost comparision between 2 surgical techniques.Participants Four hundred patients and 4 surgeons.Methods A single masked randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted previously to compare safety and efficacy of the 2 techniques for rehabilitation of the cataract patient. The fixed-facility and recurrent (consumables) cost for phacoemulsification and SICS were calculated based on information collected at different sources using standard norms. Average cost per procedure was calculated by dividing the total cost by the number of procedures performed.Main outcome measures Average fixed-facility cost and average consumable cost for both the techniques.Results The average cost of a phacoemulsification surgery for the hospital was Indian rupees (Rs) 1978.89 ($42.10), and the average cost for a SICS surgery was Rs 720.99 ($15.34), of which Rs 500.99 ($10.65) was the fixed-facility cost common to both. Phacoemulsification cost was more because of the foldable lens used.Conclusions Phacoemulsification needs additional cost for the machine (depreciation), replenishment of parts, and annual maintenance contract. Manual SICS is far more economical than phacoemulsification. Its visual result is comparable with that of phacoemulsification and is as safe.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.057

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gogate, P., Deshpande, M., & Nirmalan, P. K.
Affiliations
  • PBMA's H.V. Desai Eye Hospital (IN)
  • L V Prasad Eye Institute (IN)
Corresponding author
Gogate, Parikshit
ORCID
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
114
Issue
5
Pages
965-968
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.057
OpenAlex
W1974264820
Cited by
156
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Intraocular Surgery and Lenses
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Keywords
phacoemulsification, manual small incision cataract surgery, cataract surgery, surgical cost comparison, foldable intraocular lens, consumable costs, hospital costs, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Cataract, Cataract Extraction, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, India, Microsurgery, Visual Acuity, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Phacoemulsification, Lens Implantation, Intraocular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review