Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Ophthalmology
Published in: International Ophthalmology 4/2018

01-08-2018 | Original Paper

Comparative clinical study of Whitestar Signature phacoemulsification system with standard and Ellips FX handpieces

Authors: Daniele Tognetto, Rossella D’Aloisio, Paolo Cecchini, Marta Di Nicola, Giuseppe Di Martino

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcomes using two different phaco handpieces with different energy delivery systems of the same phacoemulsification machine.

Methods

One hundred and sixty eyes of 160 cataract patients were randomly assigned to 2.40 mm phacoemulsification using the AMO WhiteStar Signature® phaco system with the standard phaco handpiece (Group 1) or the Ellips FX phaco handpiece (Group 2). According to the lens opacities classification system III, each group was divided into four subgroups of 20 patients each. U/S total time (UST), total phaco time (TPT), mean effective phaco time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and balanced salt solution (BSS) consumption were studied. Visual acuity, corneal endothelium cell count and corneal pachymetry were evaluated before surgery and 1, 7 and 30 days after surgery.

Results

No statistically significant difference in terms of visual acuity was observed between the two groups. The postoperative endothelial cell loss and corneal pachymetry were similar between the two groups. In higher density cataracts, Ellips FX showed the lower CDE and the lowest UST. TPT and BSS consumption were significantly lower in the Ellips FX handpiece group.

Conclusions

The two phaco handpieces appeared to be safe. AMO Ellips FX handpiece showed better performances and may be safer in lens removal, especially in hard cataract patients.
Literature
1.
Hoffman RS, Fine IH, Packer M (2005) New phacoemulsification technology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 16:38–43CrossRefPubMed
2.
Devgan U (2006) Phaco fluidics and phaco ultrasound power modulations. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 19:457–468PubMed
3.
4.
Helvacioglu F, Yeter C, Sencan S, Tunc Z, Uyar OM (2014) Comparison of two different ultrasound methods of phacoemulsification. Am J Ophthalmol 158:221–226CrossRefPubMed
5.
Davison JA (2007) Comparison of ultrasonic energy expenditures and corneal endothelial cell density reductions during modulated and non-modulated phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 38:209–218PubMed
6.
Baykara M, Ercan I, Ozcetin H (2006) Microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) with pulse and burst modes. Eur J Ophalmol 16:804–808CrossRef
7.
Badoza D, Fernández Mendy J, Ganly M (2003) Phacoemulsification using the burst mode. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1101–1105CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ozkurt YB, Evciman T, Sengor T, Haboglu M, Bas G, Kurna S, Aki S (2010) Comparison of burst, pulse, and linear modes used in phacoemulsification surgery. Eur J Ophthalmol 20:353–364CrossRefPubMed
9.
Braga-Mele R (2006) Thermal effect of microburst and hyperpulse settings during sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification with advanced power modulations. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:639–642CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fishkind W, Bakewell B, Donnenfeld ED, Rose AD, Watkins LA, Olson RJ (2006) Comparative clinical trial of ultrasound phacoemulsification with and without the WhiteStar system. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:45–49CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liu Y, Zeng M, Liu X, Luo L, Yuan Z, Xia Y, Zeng Y (2007) Torsional mode versus conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification: randomized comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:287–292CrossRefPubMed
12.
Christakis PG, Braga-Mele RM (2012) Intraoperative performance and postoperative outcome comparison of longitudinal, torsional, and transversal phacoemulsification machines. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:234–241CrossRefPubMed
13.
Miyoshi T, Yoshida H (2010) Emulsification action of longitudinal and torsional ultrasound tips and the effect on treatment of the nucleus during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1201–1206CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bozkurt E, Bayraktar S, Yazgan S, Cakir M, Cekic O, Erdogan H, Yilmaz OF (2009) Comparison of conventional and torsional mode (OZil) phacoemulsification: randomized prospective clinical study. Eur J Ophthalmol 19:984–989CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rekas M, Montés-Micó R, Krix-Jachym K, Kluś A, Stankiewicz A, Ferrer-Blasco T (2009) Comparison of torsional and longitudinal modes using phacoemulsification parameters. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1719–1724CrossRefPubMed
16.
Han YK, Miller KM (2009) Comparison of vacuum rise time, vacuum limit accuracy, and occlusion break surge of 3 new phacoemulsification systems. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1424–1429CrossRefPubMed
17.
Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL et al (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. The longitudinal study of cataract study group. Arch Ophthalmol 11:831–836CrossRef
18.
Tan AC, Loon SC, Choi H, Thean L (2008) Lens opacities classification system III: cataract grading variability between junior and senior staff at a Singapore hospital. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1948–1952CrossRefPubMed
19.
Berdahl JP, Jun B, De Stafeno JJ, Kim T (2008) Comparison of a torsional handpiece through microincision versus standard clear corneal cataract wounds. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:2091–2095CrossRefPubMed
20.
Tognetto D, Cecchini P, Leon P, Di Nicola M, Ravalico G (2012) Stroke dynamics and frequency of 3 phacoemulsification machines. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:333–342CrossRefPubMed
21.
Assil KK, Harris L, Cecka J (2015) Transverse vs torsional ultrasound: prospective randomized contralaterally controlled study comparing two phacoemulsification-system handpieces. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1405–1411CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Reuschel A, Bogatsch H, Barth T, Wiedemann R (2010) Comparison of endothelial changes and power settings between torsional and longitudinal phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1855–1861CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative clinical study of Whitestar Signature phacoemulsification system with standard and Ellips FX handpieces
Authors
Daniele Tognetto
Rossella D’Aloisio
Paolo Cecchini
Marta Di Nicola
Giuseppe Di Martino
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0649-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

International Ophthalmology 4/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Ocular, corneal, and internal aberrations in eyes with keratoconus, forme fruste keratoconus, and healthy eyes

Original Paper

The impact of visual symptoms on the quality of life of patients with early to moderate glaucoma

Original Paper

Topographic typology in a consecutive series of refractive surgery candidates

Original Paper

Comparison of visual acuity measurements via three different methods in preschool children: Lea symbols, crowded Lea symbols, Snellen E chart

Original Paper

Nonsteroid anti-inflammatory therapy suppresses the development of proliferative vitreoretinopathy more effectively than a steroid one

Original Paper

Comparison of central corneal thickness and endothelial cell measurements by Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes