Abstract: We included 11 trials in this review with a total of 1228 participants, ranging from age 45 to 94. The studies were generally at unclear risk of bias due to poorly reported trial methods. No study reported presenting visual acuity, so we report both uncorrected (UCVA) and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Studies varied in visual acuity assessment methods and time frames at which outcomes were reported. Participants in the phacoemulsification group were more likely to achieve UCVA of 6/12 or more at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.41, two studies, 492 participants) and one year (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.73, one study, 439 participants). People in the phacoemulsification group were also more likely to achieve BCVA of 6/12 or more at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, four studies, 645 participants) and one year (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.14, one study, 439 participants), but the difference between the two groups was smaller. No trials reported BCVA less than 6/60 but three trials reported BCVA worse than 6/9 and 6/18: there were fewer events of this outcome in the phacoemulsification group than the ECCE group at both the three-month (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55, three studies, 604 participants) and 12-month time points (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.05, one study, 439 participants). Three trials reported posterior capsule rupture: this occurred more commonly in the ECCE group than the phacoemulsification group but small numbers of events mean the true effect is uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22, three studies, 688 participants). Iris prolapse, cystoid macular oedema and posterior capsular opacification were also higher in the ECCE group than the phacoemulsification group. Phacoemulsification surgical costs were higher than ECCE in two studies. A third study reported similar costs for phacoemulsification and ECCE up to six weeks postoperatively, but following this time point ECCE incurred additional costs due to additional visits, spectacles and laser treatment to achieve a similar outcome. Removing cataract by phacoemulsification may result in a better visual acuity compared to ECCE, with a lower complication rate. The review is currently underpowered to detect differences for rarer outcomes, including poor visual outcome. The lower cost of ECCE may justify its use in a patient population where high-volume surgery is a priority, however, there are a lack of data comparing phacoemulsification and ECCE in lower-income settings.

Plain-language summary: A search was performed of the literature in May 2013 for studies comparing the two techniques and 11 randomised controlled trials were identified which included a total of 1228 participants. These trials included participants with age-related cataract and were conducted in Europe, South America and the Far East. We evaluated these for any biases that may have affected the data, extracted data according to pre-determined criteria and performed analyses of the pooled data from all studies where possible. There were few studies that reported outcomes which met our pre-defined criteria. The studies were generally at unclear risk of bias due to poorly reported trial methods and the overall quality of the evidence for different outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. Phacoemulsification gave superior results at both three and 12-month time points. Complications were higher in the ECCE group than the phacoemulsification group. However, two out of three studies that reported costs indicated that ECCE was cheaper than phacoemulsification. In summary, on the basis of the few studies that reported outcomes that we could include in our analysis, visual outcomes were better with phacoemulsification and complications were lower with this technique. However, ECCE was cheaper and in lower income countries ECCE may therefore have a role in maximising the number of people that can be treated with limited resources.