Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Validation of two scoring systems for the prediction of posterior capsule rupture during phacoemulsification surgery
  1. S A Osborne1,
  2. W E Adams1,
  3. C V Bunce2,
  4. S G Fraser1
  1. 1Sunderland Eye Infirmary, Queen Alexandra Road, Sunderland SR2 9HP, UK
  2. 2Research and Development, Moorfields Eye Hospital, 162 City Road, London EC1V 2PD, UK
  1. Correspondence to: Stuart A Osborne Sunderland Eye Infirmary, Queen Alexandra Road, Sunderland SR2 9HP, UK; stuartosborne{at}


Aim: To attempt to validate two scoring systems for the prediction of intraoperative complication during phacoemulsification surgery.

Methods: The study population was patients attending Sunderland Eye Infirmary who underwent phacoemulsification surgery between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2003. The authors applied each scoring system to a control group of 300 patients from this study population and extrapolated the results to give an estimate of the spread of scores for the entire population. They then applied the same scoring systems to all complicated cases from the same study population. Using these results they were able to calculate the risk of a complication for a particular score on each scoring system.

Conclusion: The application of these systems in clinical practice would allow appropriate selection of phacoemulsification cases for trainee surgeons, more accurate consent from patients for their phacoemulsification surgery, and the unbiased comparison of surgical outcomes from surgeons with differing case mix difficulties.

  • phacoemulsification
  • posterior capsule rupture
  • scoring systems

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests: none declared

  • Ethics approval for this study was obtained from Sunderland Local Research Ethics Committee on 24 January 2005. REC reference number: 05/Q0904/2.