Rodríguez SB, Hernández SJR, Pérez CEC, Ramos PY, Capote CA, Veitía RZ

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page:
PDF size: 305.50 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: to evaluate the endothelial changes occurred and the visual results achieved in the eyes of patients diagnosed with senile cataract, who were operated on either by the prechop phacoemulsification technique or by the extracapsular extraction of the crystalline through the scleracorneal tunnel.
Methods: a prospective and descriptive study of 100 patients (eyes) seen at “Ramón Pando Ferrer" Cuban Institute of Ophthalmology from September to December 2010 was conducted. One half was operated on by phacoemulsification whereas the other underwent scleracorneal tunnelized extraction. The analyzed variables were: best uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, endothelial cellular count, hexagonality, variability coefficient, mean induced astigmatism and effective phaco time.
Results: the endothelial cellular loss for the phacoemulsification group was 9.8 % and for the scleralcorneal tunnel group was 6.8 %. Postoperative average hexagonality was better in the phacoemulsification group (53 %). The preoperative average variability coefficient of 0.32 decreased to 0.28 in the phacoemulsification group. Postoperative astigmatism in the phacoemulsification group was 1.35 diopters and the effective phaco time was less than 2 minutes. Preoperative best average uncorrected visual acuity in both groups was 0.29, rising to 0.56 for the scleracorneal tunnel extraction group and to 0.8 in the phacoemulsification patients.
Conclusions: the prechop phacoemulsification is a good option for cataract surgery. Endothelial alterations are similar to those of the tunnelized extraction, but the former has the advantage of improved visual acuity without glasses, because of minor induced astigmatism.

REFERENCES

1. Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya´ale D, Kocur I, Pararajasegaram R, Pokharel GP, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):844-51.

2. Huamán Gonzalez JA. Cirugía de catarata con incisión pequeña. Estudio comparativo de serie de casos. [tesis]. Perú: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; 2002.

3. Foster A. VISIÓN 2020: el desafío de la catarata. Salud Ocular Comunitaria. 2006;1(1):12.

4. Solans Barri T, García Sánchez J. Refracción Ocular. España: Sociedad Española de Oftalmología; 2003.

5. Alio JL. MICS: Micro-incision Cataract Surgery. En: Garg A. Mastering the Art of Bimanual Microincision Phaco (Phaconit/MICS). Panama: Highlights of Oftalmology; 2005.

6. Martínez-Toldos JJ, Cigales M, Hoyos-Chacon JH, Hoyos JE, Campos Mollo E. Bimanual nucleous fracture in MICS surgery. En: Garg A. Mastering the Art of Bimanual Microincision Phaco (Phakonit/MICS). Panama: Highlights of Oftalmology; 2005. p. 330-8.

7. Laroche L, Dan A, Michel M. Cirugía de la Catarata. EUA: Masson; 2000.

8. Curbelo Cunill L, Hernández Silva JR, Lanz L, Ramos López M, Río Torres M, Fernández Vázquez G, et al. Resultados de la cirugía de catarata por la técnica de facoemulsificación con quick chop. Rev Cubana de Oftalmol. 2007 [citado: 30 de enero de 2012];20(2). Disponible en: http://www.bvs.sld.cu/revistas/oft/vol20_2_07/oft02207.html

9. Hernández Silva JR. Técnica de facoemulsificación y sus variantes de corte mecánico previo del cristalino cataratoso: resultados obtenidos [tesis]. Instituto Cubano de Oftalmología "Ramón Pando Ferrer". La Habana; 2009.

10. Graves E. El edema corneal. Una complicación que puede ser evitada. En: Centurión V. El Libro del cristalino de las Américas. Brasil: Livraria Santos; 2007. p. 613-7.

11. Pérez Torregosa A. Método de análisis endotelial mediante microscopia especular de no contacto y sistema de análisis por la imagen [tesis]. España: Servicio Oftalmología. Hospital Universitario "La Fe"; 2002.

12. Hernández Silva JR, Padilla González CM, Ramos López M, Ríos Cazo R, Rio Torres M. Resultados quirúrgicos de la facoemulsificación por técnicas de prechop. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2004 [citado: 29 de enero de 2012];17(2): [aprox. 12 p.]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762004000200010&lng=es

13. Croxatto JO. Anatomía de la c órnea. En: Chiaradía P. La córnea en apuros. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Científicas Argentinas; 2006. p. 1-8.

14. Fine H. Phacoemulsification. New Technology and Clinical Application. USA: Editorial Slack Inc; 1997.

15. Hernández Silva JR, Bauza FY, Veitía ZA, Rio M, Ramos M, Rodríguez B. ULTRAMICS: Microemulsificación por ultrachop. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2008 [citado: 29 de enero de 2012];21(1). Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-21762008000100002&lng=es

16. Waring GO, Bourne WM, Edelhauser HF, Kenyon KR. The corneal endothelium. Normal and pathologic structure and function. Ophthalmology. 1982;89(6):531-90.

17. Schultz RO, Glasser DB, Matsuda M, Yee RW, Edelhauser HF. Response of the corneal endothelium to cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(8):1164-9.

18. Boyd B. El arte y la ciencia en la cirugía de catarata. Panamá: Highlights of Ophthalmology; 2001.

19. Veitía Rovirosa ZA, Bauza Fortunato Y, Hernández Silva JR, Ramos López M, Curbelo Cunill L, López Hernández I. Estudio comparativo de la pérdida celular endotelial entre las técnicas de facoemulsificación por ultrachop y prechop. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2010 [citado: 29 de enero de 2012];23 Suppl 2. Disponible en: http://bvs.sld.cu/revistas/oft/vol23_sup2_10/oft07410.htm