Eye (London, England) · 2016
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mitsui K, Kogo J, Takeda H, Shiono A, Sasaki H, Munemasa Y, Kitaoka Y, Takagi H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).ParticipantsSeventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation.
METHODS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM-inner limiting membrane peeling (27G vs 25G: 20.2±9.9 vs 16.1±9.3 min, P=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7 vs 17.2; IOP: 8.8 vs 9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30 vs 35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7 vs 8.6 weeks, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency.
METHODS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM-inner limiting membrane peeling (27G vs 25G: 20.2±9.9 vs 16.1±9.3 min, P=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7 vs 17.2; IOP: 8.8 vs 9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30 vs 35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7 vs 8.6 weeks, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency.