1 / 12

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. Jung Hwa Na M.D. Eun Chul Kim M.D. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea. Purpose.

regina
Download Presentation

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

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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).

  3. 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

  4. Patients and Methods (2)

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. Patients demographics * Median (Interquartile range)

  8. 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

  9. Visual Acuity (LogMAR) P=0.102 P=0.520 P=0.131 P=0.358 No statistical difference in BCVA.

  10. 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.

  11. 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%

  12. 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

More Related