Outcomes of microcoaxial cataract surgery using 1 8mm versus 2 2mm corneal incision
Download
1 / 12

Outcomes of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery using 1.8mm versus 2.2mm Corneal Incision - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 103 Views
  • Uploaded on

Outcomes of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery using 1.8mm versus 2.2mm Corneal Incision. The authors have no financial interest. Jung Hwa Na M.D. Eun Chul Kim M.D. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea. Purpose.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Outcomes of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery using 1.8mm versus 2.2mm Corneal Incision' - regina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Outcomes of microcoaxial cataract surgery using 1 8mm versus 2 2mm corneal incision

Outcomes of Microcoaxial Cataract Surgery using 1.8mm versus 2.2mm Corneal Incision

The authors have no financial interest

JungHwa Na M.D.

Eun Chul Kim M.D.

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science,

The Catholic University of Korea


Purpose
Purpose

To compare the postoperative results of

microcoaxial cataract surgery (MCCS) using

1.8mm incision (Stellaris Vision Enhancement System, Bausch & Lomb Inc., USA) with

2.2mm incision (Infinity Vision System, Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA).


Patients and methods 1
Patients and Methods (1)

  • Retrospective Comparative study

  • Total Forty seven eyes of 30 patients

    • 1.8mm Group (Stellaris Group) : 21 eyes

    • 2.2mm Group (Infinity Group) : 26 eyes

  • Cataract grade II or III according to the Lens Opacities Classification System III scale



Patients and methods 3
Patients and Methods (3)

  • Intraoperative parameters

    • Total phacoemulsification time

    • Cumulative Dissipated Energy (CDE)

  • Postoperative parameters

    • Follow-up at 1 week, 1 month, and 2 months

    • Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA)

    • Percentage decrease inendothelial cell density (ECD)

    • Surgical induced astigmatism (SIA)


Statistical analysis
Statistical Analysis

  • Mann-Whitney Test for comparing two independent groups

  • Wilcoxon signed ranks test for comparing before and after operation in the same group

  • Significance : P-value less than 0.05


Patients demographics
Patients demographics

* Median (Interquartile range)


Phacoemulsification time sec

Cumulative Dissipated Energy (CDE)

Phacoemulsification time (sec)

50.30±18.21

41.72±17.87

P=0.915

P=0.095

  • Phacoemulsification time : 1.8 mm Group > 2.2 mm Group

  • CDE : 1.8 mm Group < 2.2 mm Group

  • → No statistically difference


Visual acuity logmar
Visual Acuity (LogMAR)

P=0.102

P=0.520

P=0.131

P=0.358

No statistical difference in BCVA.


Endothelium
Endothelium

Mean Endothelial Cell Density (cell/㎟)

ECD decrement (%) at 2 months after operation ;

1.8mmGroup>2.2mmGroup

(P=0.151)

*: Between Preoperative mean ECD and the value of 2 months after operation at each group.

†: Between independent two groups at each follow-up period.


Surgical induced astigmatism
Surgical induced astigmatism

  • At the 2 months after operation

  • Vector analysis

  • 1.8mm Group : 0.46 ± 0.43 Diopters

  • 2.2mm Group : 0.51 ± 0.47 Diopters

  • No difference in SIA (P=0.984)

13%

12.5%

13%

25%

62.5%

74%


Conclusion
Conclusion

  • Although not statistically significant, phacoemulsification time tends to take longer and the eyes in which SIA more than 0.5D developed less frequently in 1.8mm Group.

    • Maybe due to the smaller diameter of phaco tip and incision in 1.8mm MCCS

  • We could not find any statistically significantdifference in phacoemulsification time, CDE, visual outcome, and SIA between 1.8mm and 2.2mm MCCS.

    1.8 mm MCCS is effective as 2.2 mm MCCS


ad