Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2007
Microcoaxial phacoemulsification Part 1: laboratory studies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Osher Robert H, Injev Valentine P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine and compare the fluidic, thermal, and incision behaviors of 2.2 mm microcoaxial and sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification.
SETTING: Private practice, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
METHOD: Fluidic performance of microcoaxial phacoemulsification and sleeveless bimanual microphacoemulsification was examined using a reduced-size irrigating sleeve and numerous irrigating choppers, respectively. Incision temperature during phacoemulsification, incision sealability after phacoemulsification, and incision leak were compared in cadaver eyes. Porcine eyes were used to determine whether a full-sized single-piece SN60AT intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrySof) could be inserted through a 2.2 mm incision.
RESULTS: Fluidic comparison indicated greater irrigation flow and a more stable occlusion break response with the microcoaxial setup than with the sleeveless bimanual setup under the same test conditions. Incision temperature during phacoemulsification, incision sealability after phacoemulsification, and incision leakage tests indicated that the microcoaxial setup produced less temperature rise, better incision sealability, and less incision leakage. A full-sized SN60AT IOL could be inserted through a 2.2 mm incision.
CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory results indicate that microcoaxial phacoemulsification through a 2.2 mm incision offers fluidic-, thermal-, and incision-related benefits over sleeveless bimanual microphacoemulsification. Moreover, a full-sized single-piece acrylic IOL could be safely implanted without enlarging the 2.2 mm incision.
SETTING: Private practice, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
METHOD: Fluidic performance of microcoaxial phacoemulsification and sleeveless bimanual microphacoemulsification was examined using a reduced-size irrigating sleeve and numerous irrigating choppers, respectively. Incision temperature during phacoemulsification, incision sealability after phacoemulsification, and incision leak were compared in cadaver eyes. Porcine eyes were used to determine whether a full-sized single-piece SN60AT intraocular lens (IOL) (AcrySof) could be inserted through a 2.2 mm incision.
RESULTS: Fluidic comparison indicated greater irrigation flow and a more stable occlusion break response with the microcoaxial setup than with the sleeveless bimanual setup under the same test conditions. Incision temperature during phacoemulsification, incision sealability after phacoemulsification, and incision leakage tests indicated that the microcoaxial setup produced less temperature rise, better incision sealability, and less incision leakage. A full-sized SN60AT IOL could be inserted through a 2.2 mm incision.
CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory results indicate that microcoaxial phacoemulsification through a 2.2 mm incision offers fluidic-, thermal-, and incision-related benefits over sleeveless bimanual microphacoemulsification. Moreover, a full-sized single-piece acrylic IOL could be safely implanted without enlarging the 2.2 mm incision.