Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 8/2016

01-08-2016 | Cataract

A novel method to compare phacoemulsification parameters in vivo: two halves of one nucleus

Authors: Elena Tomilova, Sergey Shukhaev

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Comparison of different phacoemulsification parameters remains a frequently debated and methodologically challenging area. The focus of this study was twofold: (1) To suggest an accurate and simple in vivo model for comparison of phaco parameters with the use of femtosecond laser technology. (2) To compare parameters of intelligent phaco (IP) torsional and combination ultrasound modes using the proposed model.

Methods

Forty-three eyes underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with the precise division of each nucleus into two equal hemispheres. This approach was applied to compare two variants of phacoemulsification settings. In each case, one hemisphere was removed with the torsional ultrasound (US) with IP, while another hemisphere was evacuated with combination US. Aspiration time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), and fluid consumption were measured in all cases.

Results

Our approach allows for direct comparison of different phacoemulsification parameters on each half of the same nucleus under identical surgical conditions. When comparison between torsional US with IP and combination US was made, without regard to nucleus density, no statistically significant difference in CDE, aspiration time, and fluid consumption was found. However, in soft cataracts, CDE was lower with the use of torsional US with IP, while aspiration time and fluid consumption demonstrated no proven differences. In hard cataracts, CDE and aspiration time were significantly lower with the use of the combination US mode.

Conclusions

The suggested approach of testing different types of phaco settings on equal halves of the same nucleus can be easily applied for quantitative comparisons under identical surgical conditions. The data obtained suggest that IP technology is preferable when compared to a combination US mode for soft lenses while the combined US is more suitable for hard nuclei.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fakhry MA, El Shazly MI (2011) Torsional ultrasound mode versus combined torsional and conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification for eyes with hard cataract. Clin Ophthalmol 5:973–978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fakhry MA, El Shazly MI (2011) Torsional ultrasound mode versus combined torsional and conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification for eyes with hard cataract. Clin Ophthalmol 5:973–978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference 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 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
3.
go back to reference Zeng M, Liu X, Liu Y, Xia Y, Luo L, Yuan Z, Zeng Y (2008) Torsional ultrasound modality for hard nucleus phacoemulsification cataract extraction. Br J Ophthalmol 92:1092–1096CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Zeng M, Liu X, Liu Y, Xia Y, Luo L, Yuan Z, Zeng Y (2008) Torsional ultrasound modality for hard nucleus phacoemulsification cataract extraction. Br J Ophthalmol 92:1092–1096CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference 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 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
5.
go back to reference Kim DH, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MK (2010) The comparison between torsional and conventional mode phacoemulsification in moderate and hard cataracts. Korean J Ophthalmol 24:336–40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kim DH, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MK (2010) The comparison between torsional and conventional mode phacoemulsification in moderate and hard cataracts. Korean J Ophthalmol 24:336–40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Mamalis N (2015) Which phacoemulsification modalities are the best? Comparing apples to apples. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:255–256CrossRefPubMed Mamalis N (2015) Which phacoemulsification modalities are the best? Comparing apples to apples. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:255–256CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Demill DL, Zaugg BE, Pettey JH, Jensen JD, Jardine GJ, Wong G, Olson RJ (2012) Objective comparison of 4 nonlongitudinal ultrasound modalities regarding efficiency and chatter. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1065–1071CrossRefPubMed Demill DL, Zaugg BE, Pettey JH, Jensen JD, Jardine GJ, Wong G, Olson RJ (2012) Objective comparison of 4 nonlongitudinal ultrasound modalities regarding efficiency and chatter. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1065–1071CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kirk KR, Ronquillo CJ, Jensen JD, Zaugg B, Barlow WR, Stagg BC, Pettey JH, Olson RJ (2014) Optimum on-time duty cycle for micropulse technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1545–1548CrossRefPubMed Kirk KR, Ronquillo CJ, Jensen JD, Zaugg B, Barlow WR, Stagg BC, Pettey JH, Olson RJ (2014) Optimum on-time duty cycle for micropulse technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1545–1548CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Oakey ZB, Jensen JD, Zaugg BE, Radmall BR, Pettey JH, Olson RJ (2013) Porcine lens nuclei as a model for comparison of 3 ultrasound modalities regarding efficiency and chatter. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1248–1253CrossRefPubMed Oakey ZB, Jensen JD, Zaugg BE, Radmall BR, Pettey JH, Olson RJ (2013) Porcine lens nuclei as a model for comparison of 3 ultrasound modalities regarding efficiency and chatter. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1248–1253CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kim J, Ko D, Kim JY, Kim M, Tchah H (2013) Phaco-efficiency test and re-aspiration analysis of repulsed particle in phacoemulsification. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251:157–1161 Kim J, Ko D, Kim JY, Kim M, Tchah H (2013) Phaco-efficiency test and re-aspiration analysis of repulsed particle in phacoemulsification. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251:157–1161
11.
go back to reference Davison JA (2008) Cumulative tip travel and implied followability of longitudinal and torsional phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:986–990CrossRefPubMed Davison JA (2008) Cumulative tip travel and implied followability of longitudinal and torsional phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:986–990CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Han YK, Miller KM (2009) Heat production: longitudinal versus torsional phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1799–1805CrossRefPubMed Han YK, Miller KM (2009) Heat production: longitudinal versus torsional phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1799–1805CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Jun B, Berdahl JP, Kim T (2010) Thermal study of longitudinal and torsional ultrasound phacoemulsification: tracking the temperature of the corneal surface, incision, and handpiece. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:832–837CrossRefPubMed Jun B, Berdahl JP, Kim T (2010) Thermal study of longitudinal and torsional ultrasound phacoemulsification: tracking the temperature of the corneal surface, incision, and handpiece. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:832–837CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Sippel KC, Pineda R Jr (2002) Phacoemulsification and thermal wound injury. Semin Ophthalmol 17:102–109CrossRefPubMed Sippel KC, Pineda R Jr (2002) Phacoemulsification and thermal wound injury. Semin Ophthalmol 17:102–109CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Chen X, Yinghong J, Yi L (2013) Comparison of clear corneal incision injuries between torsional and conventional phacoemulsification. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251:2147–2154CrossRefPubMed Chen X, Yinghong J, Yi L (2013) Comparison of clear corneal incision injuries between torsional and conventional phacoemulsification. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251:2147–2154CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Zacharias J (2015) Thermal characterization of phacoemulsification probes operated in axial and torsional modes. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:208–216CrossRefPubMed Zacharias J (2015) Thermal characterization of phacoemulsification probes operated in axial and torsional modes. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:208–216CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Zemba M, Cucu B, Furedi G, Enache V, Papadatu C, Ghigea B (2011) Intelligent phaco – always necessary? Oftalmologia 55:68–73PubMed Zemba M, Cucu B, Furedi G, Enache V, Papadatu C, Ghigea B (2011) Intelligent phaco – always necessary? Oftalmologia 55:68–73PubMed
18.
go back to reference 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 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
19.
go back to reference Cionni RJ, Crandall AS, Felsted D (2011) Length and frequency of intraoperative occlusive events with new torsional phacoemulsification software. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1785–1790CrossRefPubMed Cionni RJ, Crandall AS, Felsted D (2011) Length and frequency of intraoperative occlusive events with new torsional phacoemulsification software. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1785–1790CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A novel method to compare phacoemulsification parameters in vivo: two halves of one nucleus
Authors
Elena Tomilova
Sergey Shukhaev
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3376-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 8/2016 Go to the issue