Frontiers in medicine · 2026
Performance of a prototype electric silicone oil injector and aspirator in vitreoretinal surgery.
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.
Qin Dehua, Nan Yali, Zhu He, Wang Xueying, Liu Yizong, Fan Ruiyan, Wang Dongdong, Dan Handong, Chen Hongling, Song Zongming, Huang Zixu
Аннотация
AIM: To develop a reusable prototype electric silicone oil injector and aspirator and to compare its performance with that of a vitrectomy machine-based system and a manual syringe technique in an ex vivo porcine eye model.
METHODS: The prototype device was designed with an optimized motor, control system, and human-machine interface to provide adjustable and stable silicone oil injection and aspiration in a compact portable format. Thirty fresh ex vivo porcine eyes were randomly assigned to three groups (electric injector, vitrectomy machine-based system, and manual syringe; n = 10 per group). Injection time, aspiration time, injection volume, and aspiration volume were recorded. Handling stability during injection was assessed by video-based shake-count analysis in a subset of procedures with analyzable recordings (n = 8 per group).
RESULTS: Injection time differed significantly among the three groups (F = 24.246, p < 0.001), with the manual group showing the shortest time (65.90 ± 15.34 s), whereas no significant difference was observed between the electric and vitrectomy groups. Injection volume did not differ significantly among groups (F = 0.676, p = 0.517). Aspiration time also differed significantly (F = 9.560, p = 0.001), with the electric group showing the shortest time (149.30 ± 53.63 s). Aspiration volume did not differ significantly among groups (H = 5.091, p = 0.078). For handling stability, the number of instrument shakes differed significantly among groups (H = 16.749, p < 0.001), with the manual group showing more shakes (42.0, IQR: 9.0) than both the electric (5.0, IQR: 1.5, p < 0.001) and vitrectomy group (8.0, IQR: 2.5, p = 0.014), while no significant difference was observed between the electric and the vitrectomy group (p = 0.769).
CONCLUSION: Under the tested experimental conditions, the reusable prototype electric silicone oil injector and aspirator showed favorable aspiration performance and handling stability. Although its injection efficiency was lower than that of the manual technique, it was comparable to that of the vitrectomy machine-based system.
METHODS: The prototype device was designed with an optimized motor, control system, and human-machine interface to provide adjustable and stable silicone oil injection and aspiration in a compact portable format. Thirty fresh ex vivo porcine eyes were randomly assigned to three groups (electric injector, vitrectomy machine-based system, and manual syringe; n = 10 per group). Injection time, aspiration time, injection volume, and aspiration volume were recorded. Handling stability during injection was assessed by video-based shake-count analysis in a subset of procedures with analyzable recordings (n = 8 per group).
RESULTS: Injection time differed significantly among the three groups (F = 24.246, p < 0.001), with the manual group showing the shortest time (65.90 ± 15.34 s), whereas no significant difference was observed between the electric and vitrectomy groups. Injection volume did not differ significantly among groups (F = 0.676, p = 0.517). Aspiration time also differed significantly (F = 9.560, p = 0.001), with the electric group showing the shortest time (149.30 ± 53.63 s). Aspiration volume did not differ significantly among groups (H = 5.091, p = 0.078). For handling stability, the number of instrument shakes differed significantly among groups (H = 16.749, p < 0.001), with the manual group showing more shakes (42.0, IQR: 9.0) than both the electric (5.0, IQR: 1.5, p < 0.001) and vitrectomy group (8.0, IQR: 2.5, p = 0.014), while no significant difference was observed between the electric and the vitrectomy group (p = 0.769).
CONCLUSION: Under the tested experimental conditions, the reusable prototype electric silicone oil injector and aspirator showed favorable aspiration performance and handling stability. Although its injection efficiency was lower than that of the manual technique, it was comparable to that of the vitrectomy machine-based system.