Corneal incision width after lens implantation: Comparing delivery systems
Carlo Cagini , Maria Teresa Perri , Anna Pia Di Napoli , Tito Fiore , Marco Messina , Leopoldo Spadea , Gian Maria Cavallini
下载PDF
{"title":"Corneal incision width after lens implantation: Comparing delivery systems","authors":"Carlo Cagini , Maria Teresa Perri , Anna Pia Di Napoli , Tito Fiore , Marco Messina , Leopoldo Spadea , Gian Maria Cavallini","doi":"10.1016/j.xjec.2018.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare corneal incision width after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (IOL) using different delivery systems.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred and seventeen patients with cataract and no other anterior segment pathological features or previous eye surgery underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation through a 2.2 mm incision. Three foldable IOL were implanted with their recommended delivery systems: Acrysof© SN60WF with Monarch© III/cartridge D (Group A, 38 patients); Tecnis© ZCB00 with Unfolder Platinum/cartridge easy load (Group B, 38 patients); Acrysof© SN60WF with Ultrasert™ preloaded system (Group C, 42 patients). Incision width was measured before and after phacoemulsification and IOL implantation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Before and after phacoemulsification incision width was, respectively, 2.21 ± 0.02 mm and 2.34 ± 0.08 mm in group A; 2.20 ± 0.02 mm and 2.31 ± 0.06 mm in group B; 2.20 ± 0.02 mm and 2.30 ± 0.07 mm in group C. Incision width was not significantly enlarged after phacoemulsification. Before and after IOL implantation incision width was, respectively, 2.34 ± 0.07 mm and 2.47 ± 0.07 mm in group A; 2.32 ± 0.06 mm and 2.45 ± 0.08 mm in group B; 2.30 ± 0.07 mm and 2.39 ± 0.07 mm in group C. Incision widths in group C were significantly different to groups A and B. No relationship was found between incision sizes and phacoemulsification time, ultrasound energy and IOL powers.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In cataract surgery Ultrasert™ enlarges the corneal incision less than other delivery systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100782,"journal":{"name":"Journal of EuCornea","volume":"1 1","pages":"Pages 8-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.xjec.2018.04.001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of EuCornea","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452403417300110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
引用
批量引用
Abstract
Purpose To compare corneal incision width after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation (IOL) using different delivery systems.
Methods One hundred and seventeen patients with cataract and no other anterior segment pathological features or previous eye surgery underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation through a 2.2 mm incision. Three foldable IOL were implanted with their recommended delivery systems: Acrysof© SN60WF with Monarch© III/cartridge D (Group A, 38 patients); Tecnis© ZCB00 with Unfolder Platinum/cartridge easy load (Group B, 38 patients); Acrysof© SN60WF with Ultrasert™ preloaded system (Group C, 42 patients). Incision width was measured before and after phacoemulsification and IOL implantation.
Results Before and after phacoemulsification incision width was, respectively, 2.21 ± 0.02 mm and 2.34 ± 0.08 mm in group A; 2.20 ± 0.02 mm and 2.31 ± 0.06 mm in group B; 2.20 ± 0.02 mm and 2.30 ± 0.07 mm in group C. Incision width was not significantly enlarged after phacoemulsification. Before and after IOL implantation incision width was, respectively, 2.34 ± 0.07 mm and 2.47 ± 0.07 mm in group A; 2.32 ± 0.06 mm and 2.45 ± 0.08 mm in group B; 2.30 ± 0.07 mm and 2.39 ± 0.07 mm in group C. Incision widths in group C were significantly different to groups A and B. No relationship was found between incision sizes and phacoemulsification time, ultrasound energy and IOL powers.
Conclusion In cataract surgery Ultrasert™ enlarges the corneal incision less than other delivery systems.
晶状体植入术后角膜切口宽度:比较输送系统
目的比较超声乳化和人工晶状体植入术(IOL)后角膜切口宽度。方法对117例无其他前段病变或既往眼部手术的白内障患者行2.2 mm切口白内障植入术。3例可折叠人工晶状体采用推荐的输送系统植入:Acrysof©SN60WF与Monarch©III/墨盒D (A组,38例);Tecnis©ZCB00 with Unfolder Platinum/cartridge easy loading (B组,38例);acryysof©SN60WF与Ultrasert™预加载系统(C组,42例患者)。在超声乳化术和人工晶状体植入术前后测量切口宽度。结果A组超声乳化术前后切口宽度分别为2.21 ± 0.02 mm和2.34 ± 0.08 mm;B组为2.20 ± 0.02 mm, 2.31 ± 0.06 mm;c组为2.20 ± 0.02 mm, 2.30 ± 0.07 mm,超声乳化术后切口宽度无明显增大。A组人工晶体植入术前后切口宽度分别为2.34 ± 0.07 mm和2.47 ± 0.07 mm;B组为2.32 ± 0.06 mm, 2.45 ± 0.08 mm;C组(2.30 ± 0.07 mm)、C组(2.39 ± 0.07 mm)切口宽度与A、b组差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。切口大小与超声乳化时间、超声能量、人工晶状体功率无关。结论在白内障手术中,Ultrasert™对角膜切口的扩大小于其他给药系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。