medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2019, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2019; 93 (1)

Surgical parameter assessment using two Phacoemulsification Systems for grade I to IV cataracts

González-Salinas R, Corredor-Ortega C, Garza-León M, Álvarez-Padilla M, Serrano-Ahumada AS, Rubio-Tijerina F, Martínez-Cano JA, Olivares-de Emparan JP

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 19-25
PDF size: 266.48 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Aim: To compare the cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), aspiration fluid and aspiration time (AT) used during phacoemulsification using two surgical platforms. Methods: Consecutive eyes from patients undergoing cataract surgery were included. Lens opacities were graded from NO1NC1 to NO6NC6 using the LOCS III classification. Two platforms were evaluated: 1. Centurion® system with active-fluidics. 2. Infiniti® vision system with gravity-fluidics. CDE, AT and mean estimated as-piration fluid (EAF) were registered and compared. Results: A total of 216 eyes were evaluated. Mean age ± standard deviation was 78.3 ± 9.8 years (range 57-92). Significant differences were evidenced for overall CDE per nuclear density for cataracts Grade II to IV (p = 0.031, p = 0.045 and p = 0.032 respectively). AT showed a significant disparity for cataracts Graded II and III (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001), as the EAF (p = 0.001 and p = 0.042 respectively). All differences favoured the active-fluidics configuration group. Conclusions: Active-Fluidics System demonstrated to be more effective than Gravity-fluidics system for cataracts Grade II-IV phacoemulsification.


REFERENCES

  1. Lundström M, Barry P, Henry Y, Rosen P, Stenevi U. Evidence-based guidelines for cataract surgery: guidelines based on data in the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery database. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(6):1086-93.

  2. Reuschel A, Bogatsch H, Barth T, Wiedemann R. Comparison of endothelial changes and power settings between torsional and longitudinal phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(11):1855-61.

  3. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614-8.

  4. Riaz Y, de Silva SR, Evans JR. Manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10): CD008813.

  5. Spalton D, Koch D. The constant evolution of cataract surgery. BMJ. 2000;321:1304.

  6. Lansingh VC, Carter MJ, Martens M. Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1670-8.

  7. Abell RG, Vote BJ. Cost-Effectiveness of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery versus Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:10-6.

  8. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, Yang X, Bao F, Yu A, et al. Axial length measurement failure rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in eyes with cataract. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128929.

  9. Christakis PG, Braga-Mele RM. Intraoperative performance and postoperative outcome comparison of longitudinal, torsional, and transversal phacoemulsification machines. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:234-41.

  10. Rękas M, Montés-Micó R, Krix-Jachym K, Kluś A, Stankiewicz A, Ferrer- Blasco T. Comparison of torsional and longitudinal modes using phacoemulsification parameters. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35(10):1719-24.

  11. Assaf A, Roshdy MM. Comparative analysis of corneal morphological changes after transversal and torsional phacoemulsification through 2.2 mm corneal incision. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:55-61.

  12. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, et al. The lens opacities classification system III. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111(6):831-6.

  13. Chen M, Anderson E, Hill G, Chen JJ, Patrianakos T. Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy between the Infiniti and Centurion phacoemulsification systems. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1367-72.

  14. Sorrentino FS, Matteini S, Imburgia A, Bonifazzi C, Sebastiani A, Parmeggiani F. Torsional phacoemulsification: A pilot study to revise the “harm scale” evaluating the endothelial damage and the visual acuity after cataract surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186975.

  15. Venkatesh R, Van Landingham SW, Khodifad AM, Haripriya A, Thiel CL, Ramulu P, et al. Carbon footprint and cost–effectiveness of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016 Jan 1;27(1):82-8.

  16. Gonzalez-Salinas R, Garza-Leon M, Saenz-de-Viteri M, Solis-S JC, Gulias- Cañizo R, Quiroz-Mercado H. Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy delivered by active-fluidic pressure control phacoemulsification system versus gravity-fluidics. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;1-7.

  17. Solomon KD, Lorente R, Fanney D, Cionni RJ. Clinical study using a new phacoemulsification system with surgical intraocular pressure control. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:542-9.

  18. Oh LJ, Nguyen CL, Wong E, Wang SS, Francis IC. Prospective study of Centurion® versus Infiniti® phacoemulsification systems: surgical and visual outcomes. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10(11):1698.

  19. Khokhar S, Aron N, Sen S, Pillay G, Agarwal E. Effect of balanced phacoemulsification tip on the outcomes of torsional phacoemulsification using an active-fluidics system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(1):22-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com