Talk:Cataract surgery

Comment
This page distinguishes polymethyl methacrylate lenses and sodium acrylate lenses from acrylic lenses. However, "acrylic" is a term that is commonly used as a synonym for polymethyl methacrylate (tradenames Plexiglas and Lucite). If it is not being used as a synonym, it means a more general concept which would include both polymethyl methacrylate and sodium acrylate (with which it is also being distinguished).

An edit is reccommended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.203.154.12 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC).

History?
We need something on the history of this procedure. When did man first try to remove cataracts? How did the procedure evolve into one of the safest? Lou Sander 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a start with it. --WS 11:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've been wondering what they did about anesthesia in the early days of modern cataract surgery. Also, family members recall from the 1940s and 1950s that patients' heads were immobilized for quite a while after the procedure. This might be a good addition to the history. Lou Sander 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The earliest date of 29 AD contradicts what I've read elsewhere, that cataract surgery was known in the 3rd century BC. I'm not editing the article because I'm really not an expert. "Chrysippus remarks that this example is belied by the existence of people whose sight was restored by cataract removal operations." (Russo, _The Forgotten Revolution_ p. 212. The source is noted as Simplicius's commentary on Aristotle, from the 6th C. AD -- perhaps the article here is preferring the more direct early mention.) 71.84.245.174 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety and efficacy
The opening paragraph includes the statement "It is one of the safest and most successful procedures in all of medicine". This seems to be a rather bold statement to make without any data referenced to back it up. --151.190.254.108 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although what constitutes "safe" and what constitutes "effective" is certainly open to a bit of interpretation, I have added a citation that backs up the statement. -AED 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot of literature and statistics to back this up. It is not only one of the safest and most successful, but also one of the quickest and most common non-trivial procedures, but it is necessary to support it with references, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Structure of this and related articles
[Note: I am not an medical professional, but a 54 year old IT professional who understands the process of structuring this type of content, but more importantly has recently had phaco based replacement of both lenses due to early onset cataracts, so I understand very well how this all feels from the other end of the knife ]

I see that you've been tidying up and improving this article but I still feel that is structure and relationship to other articles needs tidying further.

First Types of surgery: you've got three broad types of surgical procedure and this section should be structured accoundingly
 * Phaco based ECCE
 * Conventional ECCE
 * ICCE

This is the correct order because it is ranked in order of usage. The Phaco summary should include the reasons for Phaco's popularity: efficiency and effectiveness of procedure and short recover times. Conventional ECCE and ICCE should include a short discriminant to explain when they are still used in preference to Phaco.

Intraocular lens implantation is not a type of surgery but a common stage in all three procedures. It therefore does not belong in Types of surgery but in its own following section. I did wonder why ths merits its own section but the real reason for it being here is to summarise very briefly the IOL options, and to hook to the IOL article itself for the detail. This hook should also explain that the IOL section will discuss the optic characteristics of the various options (which it currently doesn't BTW). This section currently includes detail on complications, which doesn't belong here. This needs to be consolidated with the discussion in the Operating Procedures or Complications sections.

Likewise Intracapsular cataract extraction is a type of surgery and this test should be hoisted into the above bullet.

Preoperative Evaluation Gosh you can tell that this article was written by doctors for doctors. You've forgotten the most important part of the eval from the patients perspective: you need to do the biometry so that the IOLs are correctly proscribed for the patents needs.

Operating Procedures also wanders into Post Operative Care and Recovery. This need split into two separate sections. First the procedures themselves miss some key points such as it being absolutely essential that the patient remains still during the procedure, and therefore depending on anxiety level different forms of local anaesthesia and mild sedation may be appropriate and in the extreme general anaesthesia be in the best interests of some patients. [Isn't this uncontrolled patient movement one of the main factors in posterior capsular tears?]

Also I do think that you should elude to the visual effects experience by patients as they watch their lenses being liquefied and removed "from the inside" -- this is a truly bizarre (almost psychedelic) and disturbing experience.

Somewhere you should discuss the appropriateness of AK which is currently omitted.

Next the Post Operative Care and Recovery should be structured chronologically, first discussing immediate post op. For example in my case the dilation drops dilate the pupil larger than the diameter of the IOL allowing unfocused light to pass directly onto the retina, causing a degree of white-out / loss of contrast for about six hours past the op and somewhat similar to the opification caused by the cataracts themselves -- very disturbing until I worked out the optics of what was going on here. Secondly the typical recovery times for iris function. It took over 24 hrs before the iris returned to approximately normal diameter, and about 4 weeks whilst its responsiveness was degraded causing some degree of photophobia. This is the point to discuss anti-inflammatory and antibiotic drops ,and cleaning regimes to avoid fungal as well as antibiotic infection.

And one final point is the issue of the changing corneal geometry -- particularly for the first two months after the operation -- and the impact this may have on any corrective prescriptions. For someone like myself with ~1.5D of astigmatism pre op, and needing to read / write 8+ hrs a day on a PC this was a real strain and issue.

[Though I have quoted my experiences in this discussion, I am not trying to personalise the article itself. I accept that this article should remain largely written by medical professionals, but acknowledging that vast majority of readers will be cataract sufferers or their relatives. We should address their potential concerns. If I as a cataract sfferer experience these issues, then they might be common enough at least touched on in the article. However, if the main drafter are interested I can mock up my proposed new structure in my sandbox sothat you can see a draft the overall changes]

One final point: the IOL article needs major change to align with this but I will discuss this in said article. TerryE 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (more accurately got a new pair of IOLs).
 * Good recommendations, and the current structure is much as described. if you ever read this, you should know that this, like many other articles on Wikipedia, was largely written by people who are not medical professionals or recognised specialists in the topic, but had the time and interest to contribute. That is why we insist on reliable references. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Two eyes in the same day
Mention if two eyes are ever operated on on the same day. Jidanni 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how will you get home?
 * But at a remote rural once a year clinic (if there is such) in a impoverished country, maybe it would make sense.
 * ✅ &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"ambulatory"
ambulatory (rather than inpatient) setting whereupon you commence to lose the reader in a forest of fancy unlinked words throughout the remainder of the article. Ambulatory must mean in an ambulance, he thinks. Great :-( Jidanni 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ambulatory means walking. It is not a particularly obscure word. In this context it refers to out-patient setting where the person goes home shortly after the operation. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The English used here is not idiomatic. I will try to clean it up in August if no one else does so first. 75.38.55.182 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) msj

"Standard all over the world"
I believe that your article needs to also mention Small Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS). As far as I understand Phaco is NOT the standard all over the world but the standard in developed countries.

SICS is cheaper and faster than phaco with similar benefits and applied in many high volume type scenarios (a surgeon might do 4-5 surgeries in a day in Australia, but in Nepal I have seen them do 60). It does not require as much expensive disposable equipment. SICS also does not require sutures, see http://www.cybersight.org/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-1809-1834 for more info.

Dash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.66.193.244 (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been done, see MSICS. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is now also an article in its own right

What canI do after surgery?
Can I play golf? Can I take the long trip airplane such as international fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.115.80 (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not provide medical, legal or other advice. Please ask your doctor. --Janke | Talk 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on the quality of vision after the surgery, which often depends on a set of factors not directly related to the cataracts, YMMD. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

one other complication
I recently had cataract surgery on my right eye. I experienced a complication that I do not see listed in the article. As my doctor explained to me, the crystalline lens (old lens) is fragmented during surgery, and then the fragments are removed. One or more significant fragments of my old lens were missed, requiring a second surgery two days later. I have seen this particular complication referenced at places other than Wikipedia, which in my experience is unusual: that is, usually Wikipedia articles are quite thorough. I would really appreciate some feedback on this. 66.26.236.105 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"There are two main types of cataract surgery"...
Followed by three bullet points?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.178.19 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition;-) (don't worry if you dont get the reference) &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 18 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see thisedits). Tobby72 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the claims have been checked and the refs found relevant and valid, or the text changed, though it is always possible that something has been missed. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Something missing?
Quoting the article:


 * There are three main types of cataract surgery:


 * Phacoemulsification (Phaco) .................


 * Conventional extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE):...............


 * Intracapsular cataract extraction (ICCE) ................ After lens removal, an artificial plastic lens (an intraocular lens implant) can be placed in either the anterior chamber or sutured into the sulcus. (end quote)

The way this is set up, it appears that ONLY IN THE THIRD TYPE is an artificial lens implanted. I'm sure this is not the case but I don't know enough to change this. Please will someone take a look at this? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cataract surgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826095607/http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79 to http://www.medrounds.org/bookstore/ProductDetail.php?product_id=79
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017055832/http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html to http://www.pcli.com/cataract/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726035011/http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf to http://www.escrs.org/Publications/Eurotimes/05September/pdf/couching.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.aao.org/news/academy_express/20060405.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Access to cataract surgery
Regarding this edit, removed a sourced paragraph about access to cataract surgery in the UK, stating "need better source, and not history":

"A survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in 2017 found that access to cataract surgery in the English NHS and in Northern Ireland on the grounds of visual acuity thresholds was restricted in most centres, especially for second eye surgery. This was despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which emphasised that the use of these thresholds to restrict access is not justified."

But the source seems fine to me (what do you think is wrong with the source, ?), and the source even links to more detailed and original sources, should people want to examine it closer.

And while I do agree that the paragraph probably doesn't belong in the history section, I don't see a paragraph being misplaced as a reason to just delete it; it should rather get a note (perhaps here on the talk page) saying that it is misplaced, or even better actually be moved to another more appropriate section. I suggest a new section "Access to cataract surgery"; that section could then be expanded over time.

There might be other reasons to delete the text (such as it being too local, concerning less than 1% of the world population), but I don't find the stated reasons valid.

--Jhertel (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added something in a new Society and culture section. We could do more content about access in various regions. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes should be in a section called society and culture. Thanks User:Jytdog. Ref to NICE is suitable.
 * www.onmedica.com is not the best source, but maybe sufficient enough with the rewording Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Double Vision
Added "injections can bruise the extra-ocular muscles, resulting in double vision." from the publisher of Pathophysiology of postoperative diplopia after cataract surgery on this medical journal, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20057294. However it was removed by Jytdog. Why? Surfer808 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Surfer808. Three things. You added your comment up above, in the middle of someone else's comment. Please don't insert comments in the middle of other people's.  Also new comments go at the bottom of the page, per convention. Please see WP:TPG for both things.
 * Second, you have misrepresented your edit. This was the edit you made. The citation was to eyedoctorshawaii.com You added spam to Wikipedia. Please don't do that.  For content about health, please follow WP:MEDRS - that calls for recent literature reviews in good quality journals and statements by major by medical or scientific bodies.
 * Third, you asked the same question at my talk page, and I had already answered there. (same answer given above in point 2). Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2 Group 4c
Peer Review This edit improves the articles as described in the guidelines, and has acheived its goal of going more in-depth for retinal detachment to show prevalence of some things patients might experience after getting cataract surgery. The draft is comes from a neutral point of view and includes citations from secondary articles that are free to use. There is no sign of plagarism and is formatted to be consistent with Wikipedia's standard. JasperT888 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Jdinger123 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Arcmelodia (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Update the descriptions in complications sections for retinal detachment and toxic anterior segment syndrome to describe what happens and what patients might experience.
 * Will also add prevalence of each complication in the section. Neilshieh (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This group substantially improved the Wikipedia page by adding prevalence and incidence with risk according to up to date guidelines Niamh.ogrady (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jx130, UAslam-Mir, Aecutuli, A. Choi, Future Pharmacist from UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Foley1115, Do.shelly, Brandon James Ross, Neilshieh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference formatting
Is anyone who has previously substantively edited this article, including adding references, going to object if the references are reformatted consistently using list based CS1 formatting? If so, please explain your reasons and describe a preferred consistent alternative. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

B-class review
 The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.&#32;It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of tags and citation templates such as  is optional.✅ still a few obscure  but uncontroversial items, but better than most, formatting fairly consistent. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.&#32;It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.✅ probably something I have overlooked, let me know when you find it. The article has a defined structure.&#32;Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.✅follows MEDMOS fairly well, let me know if there are any problems. The article is reasonably well-written.&#32;The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.✅ I think so, YMMD. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.&#32;Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.✅has infobox, navbox and some photos. More photos would be nice. ✅ I think so, though it is by nature sowemwhat technical. Let me know if you find any specific problems and I will try to elucidate. I researched and explained a lot of stuff, but probably missed something.  Looks OK, Promoting to B.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Cataract surgery in India
There are probably enough good quality sources available to create a substantial article on cataract surgery in India if anyone has the inclination. It is the world leader in quantity, and has a long history as well. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikidoc copied from us.
I made some copyvio checks using Earwig's tool, and it gave a warning for the Wikidoc article. I checked various old versions on both sites and the first version of the page on Wikidoc has a later date than than similar versions on Wikipedia, therefore the Wikipedia version is the original. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just saw that with Centipede. STEM info  (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Predatory publisher?
, you deleted a reference with the edit summary predatory source. What is your evidence? Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * is published by Sciencedomain International, a well-known predatory publisher. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , It does seem to be somewhat shaky, though the information it was used to support is the sort of thing one would not question if published in a newspaper, and is probably true, certainly plausible. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 01:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nonetheless a clear fail of WP:MEDRS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not referencing biomedical information therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply, so it could not fail WP:MEDRS. Nevertheless it has been replaced. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 04:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Different lens
What kind of new advanced lens offered and how much additional if on Medicare 2600:1010:B178:E983:E02A:5CBC:EDEC:665 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Special type of glasses
"Early symptoms of cataract may be improved by wearing specific types of glasses": What are the types? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . As far as I can make out, sunglasses for excessive glare, and updated regular prescription glasses, as a general refractive change seems to be fairly common when cataracts are developing, so not so much "specific" as "ordinary but optimised". The source claimed specific, and the editor who added the statement presumably just followed the source. I have not found a better source. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm going to change that to "appropriate", in the hope that it will not send people on a wild goose chase after cataract-specific glasses.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable thing to do. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of FAC
, who did GA review,, who did peer review, , who did significant copy editing, and who seemed to take an interest. Just letting you all know that the article has been nominated for FA, thanks in part to your efforts so far. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)