1 / 12

1.8 mm Cataract Surgery: Clinical Results 6 Months after Coaxial and Biaxial MICS and Implantation of a New Micro-incisi

1.8 mm Cataract Surgery: Clinical Results 6 Months after Coaxial and Biaxial MICS and Implantation of a New Micro-incision IOL . Rosa Braga-Mele, M. Ed, M.D., FRCS(S) Associate Professor, University of Toronto, Canada

tao
Download Presentation

1.8 mm Cataract Surgery: Clinical Results 6 Months after Coaxial and Biaxial MICS and Implantation of a New Micro-incisi

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. 1.8 mm Cataract Surgery: Clinical Results 6 Months after Coaxial and Biaxial MICS and Implantation of a New Micro-incision IOL Rosa Braga-Mele, M. Ed, M.D., FRCS(S) Associate Professor, University of Toronto, Canada Director of Cataract Unit and Surgical Teaching,Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto Consultant for B&L, AMO and Alcon

  2. Methods • A Pilot Study was conducted to evaluate the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System and a new microincisional IOL when used to perform phaco in a clinical setting by 1 surgeon • At our center, we performed surgery with: • Biaxial MICS (1.4-1.6 mm incision) and MicroFlow needle • Coaxial MICS (1.8 mm incision) with MICS 1.8 mm needle • All patients • +2 to +4 nuclear sclerotic cataracts • Insertion of the MI60 intraocular lens ( a microincisional IOL delivered through a 1.8-1.9 mm incision) • Both B-MICS and C-MICS surgeries • Stellaris Advanced Flow Module in flow mode was used • Intraoperative, Day 1 and 6 month data were analyzed

  3. Phaco Platform Used • Choice of Pump Systems; Fluidic Options (Vacuum or Flow-based) • 6 Crystal Ultrasound hand piece • Custom Power Modulation • MICS Platform Ready Bimanual and Micro-coaxial techniques • 1.4mm MICS • 1.8 and 2.2mm Coaxial MICS • Wireless Dual Liner Foot Control Stellaris Vision Enhancement System

  4. EQ Fluidics Minimizes surge Highly accurate vacuum measurements Transducer sensitive to extremely small changes in vacuum Non-contact Housed in low compliance material Rapid response software controls pump Avoid rapid influx of fluid from anterior chamber Ultrasound Control Advanced Custom Control Software Extended hyper-pulse and micro-burst modes Pulse shaping increases followability Fluidic control & Power modulations

  5. Microincision IOL (Akreos MI60) • Material is flexible, deformable, resists tearing • Suitable for injection through sub-2 mm incision • Minimize PCO with 4 angulated haptics (10°) and a continuous 360° barrier • Stable in the bag through suitable haptic design

  6. Settings Used on Stellaris AFM For B-MICS BH raised by 10 cm over above settings

  7. Intraoperative Parameters Advanced Flow Module – Flow Mode Used (N=40)

  8. Intraoperative • At end of phaco wound size was re-measured • BMICS 1.5 mm (enlarged to 1.8 for IOL) • CMICS 1.8 mm • MI60 IOL was inserted through 1.8 mm incision with minimal or no difficulty • Gentle insertion, no tissue damage • Easily unfolds into capsular bag • Centres immediately • End of insertion: wound re-measured: 1.9mm in all cases

  9. 1.8 mm C-MICs with MI60 IOL insertion PLEASE CLICK ON VIDEO FILE IF NOT PLAYING HERE. THANK YOU.

  10. Day 1 Postoperatively • IOL well-centered • Subjectively, patients happy with no complaints

  11. Month 6 Postoperatively • No induced astigmatism • Good contrast sensitivity • IOL well-centered • Subjectively, patients happy with no complaints (no edge glare, halos)

  12. Summary • AFM Flow module • Enhances nuclear removal while minimizing required phaco energy and good chamber stability • Similar phaco time and power utilization for both BMICS AND CMICS • Slightly better fluidic control and chamber stability using the 1.8 mm CMICS setup over BMICS • Learning curve short • Specifically for CMICS procedure • Good postoperative outcomes with minimal or no induced astigmatism and good IOL centration with good visual outcomes for patients (using MI60 IOL and 6 mos f/u)

More Related