方法：计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据库、维普数据库(VIP)、中国知网数据库(CNKI)，并结合文献追溯的方法，收集1989/2013年在国内发表的有关SICS与Phaco对患者术后临床疗效的对照研究文献。使用RevMan 5.0软件，选择评价临床疗效的主要指标：术后视力、并发症(角膜平均散光度、角膜水肿、后囊破裂、前房虹膜反应)几个方面进行Meta分析。以危险差(risk difference，RD)判定SICS与Phaco的治疗效果，同质性资料(P>0.05)选取固定效应模型，异质性资料(P≤0.05)选取随机效应模型进行综合定量分析。

结果：本研究共纳入8篇中文文献，两组术后90d时裸眼视力>0.5，差异无统计学意义(P=0.14)。两组在术后角膜散光、角膜水肿程度、后囊膜破裂、前房虹膜反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论：SICS与Phaco两种手术方式对治疗白内障的效果相近，因此应根据实际情况选择手术方式从而取得更加理想的手术效果。

METHODS: A computerized literature search was carried out in Chinese Biomedical Database(CBM), Wanfang Data, VIP and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI)to collect articles published between 1989-2013 concerning the curative efficacy of SICS versus Phaco. The studies were assessed in terms of clinical case-control criteria. Meta-analysis were performed to assess the visual acuity, the complications rates between SICS and Phaco 90 days after surgery. Treatment effects were measured as risk difference(RD)between SICS and Phaco. Fixed and random effect models were employed to combine results after a heterogeneity test.

RESULTS:A total of 8 studies were included in our Meta-analysis. At 90 days postoperative time, there were no significant differences between the two groups at the visual acuity >0.5(P=0.14); and no significant differences on the complications rates of corneal astigmatism, corneal edema, posterior capsular rupture and anterior iris reaction(P>0.05).

CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is no different on the curative effects of SICS and Phaco for cataract.