- •Preface
- •Contributors
- •Contents
- •Introduction
- •Literature Review
- •Major Issues
- •Major Studies
- •Negative Studies
- •References
- •1.1.1 Introduction
- •1.1.3 Torsional Ultrasound
- •1.1.4 Our Procedure for Emulsifying the Nucleus
- •References
- •1.2 Transitioning to Bimanual MICS
- •1.2.1 Introduction
- •1.2.2 Technique
- •1.2.3 Summary
- •1.3 0.7 mm Microincision Cataract Surgery
- •1.3.1 Sub 1 mm MICS: Why?
- •1.3.3 Instrumentation
- •1.3.3.2 0.7 mm Irrigating Instruments
- •1.3.4 Surgery
- •1.3.4.1 Incision
- •1.3.4.2 Capsulorhexis
- •1.3.4.3 Hydrodissection
- •1.3.4.4 Prechopping
- •1.3.5 0.7 mm MICS Combined Procedures
- •1.3.5.1 0.7 mm MICS and Glaucoma Surgery
- •1.3.6 Summary
- •References
- •2. MICS Instrumentation
- •2.1 MICS Instrument Choice: The First Step in the Transition
- •2.2 MICS Incision
- •2.3 MICS Capsulorhexis
- •2.4 MICS Prechopping
- •2.5 MICS Irrigation/Aspiration Instruments
- •2.5.1 19 G Instruments
- •2.5.2 21 G Instruments
- •2.6 MICS Auxiliary Instrument
- •2.6.1 Scissors
- •2.6.2 Gas Forced Infusion
- •2.6.3 Surge Prevention
- •2.7 New MICS Instruments
- •2.7.1 Flat Instruments
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Power Generation
- •3.3.1 Tuning
- •3.2.2 Phaco Energy
- •3.2.2.1 Low Frequency Energy
- •3.2.2.2 High Frequency Energy
- •3.2.3 Transient Cavitation
- •3.2.4 Sustained Cavitation
- •3.3.1 Alteration of Stroke Length
- •3.3.2 Alteration of Duration
- •3.3.2.1 Burst Mode
- •3.3.2.2 Pulse Mode
- •Micro Pulse (Hyper-Pulse)
- •Pulse Shaping
- •3.3.3 Alteration of Emission
- •3.4 Fluidics
- •3.5 Vacuum Sources
- •3.6 Surge
- •3.7.1 Micro-incisional Phaco
- •3.7.2 Bimanual Micro-Incisional Phaco
- •3.7.3 Micro-Incisional Coaxial Phaco
- •3.7.3.1 Irrigation and Aspiration
- •3.8 Conclusion
- •Reference
- •Further Reading
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.3 Incision Size
- •4.4 Torsional Ultrasound
- •4.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •5. Technology Available
- •5.1 How to Better Use Fluidics with MICS
- •5.1.1 Physical Considerations
- •5.1.1.2 Chamber Stability
- •5.1.1.3 Holdability
- •5.1.2 Surgical Considerations
- •5.1.2.2 Phaco Technique
- •5.1.2.4 The OS3 and CataRhex SwissTech Platforms
- •Equipment
- •Machine Settings
- •5.2 How to Use Power Modulation in MICS
- •5.2.1 Introduction
- •5.2.3 The Concept of Unoccluded Flow Vacuum
- •5.2.4 The Intricacies of Ultrasound Power Modulation
- •5.2.5 The Variable Incidence of Wound Burn Rates
- •References
- •5.3 MICS with Different Platforms
- •5.3.1 MICS with the Accurus Surgical System
- •5.3.1.1 Introduction and Historic Background
- •5.3.1.3 Surgical Parameters for MICS with Accurus
- •5.3.1.4 Final Considerations
- •5.3.2.1 Introduction
- •5.3.2.7 Technology for MICS on the AMO Signature
- •5.3.2.8 Applying Signature Technology to CMICS and BMICS
- •5.3.3 MICS with Different Platforms: Stellaris Vision Enhancement System
- •5.3.3.2 Evaluating the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System
- •5.3.3.3 The Advantages of BMICS
- •References
- •6.1 Pupil Dilation and Preoperative Preparation
- •6.1.1 Managing the Small Pupil
- •6.1.2 Techniques that Depend on the Manipulation of the Pupil
- •6.1.3 Iris Surgery
- •6.1.4 Preoperative Preparation and Infection Prophylaxis
- •6.1.5 Evaluating Risk
- •6.1.6 Assessing Your Approach
- •6.1.7 Preventing Infection, Step by Step
- •6.1.8 Sample Protocol Outline
- •6.1.9 A Careful, Critical Eye
- •References
- •6.2 Incisions
- •References
- •6.3 Thermodynamics
- •6.3.1 Introduction
- •6.3.2 Corneal Thermal Damage
- •6.3.3 Heat Generation
- •6.3.4 Factors that Contribute to Thermal Incision Damage
- •6.3.4.1 Energy Emission: Amount and Pattern of How the Energy Is Delivered
- •6.3.4.3 Viscoelastic Devices and Possible Occlusion of the Aspiration Line
- •6.3.4.4 Irrigation Flow
- •6.3.4.5 Position of the Tip Inside the Incision
- •6.3.4.6 Tip Design
- •6.3.4.7 Surgical Technique
- •6.3.5 Conclusion
- •6.4 Using Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices with Smaller Incisions
- •6.4.1 Introduction
- •6.4.1.1 The Nature of OVDs: Rheology
- •6.4.1.3 Soft Shell and Ultimate Soft Shell Technique (SST & USST)
- •6.4.2 Routine, Special and complicated Cases
- •6.4.2.1 Phakic and Anterior Chamber IOLs
- •6.4.2.3 Fuchs’ Endothelial Dystrophy
- •6.4.2.5 Capsular Staining for White & Black Cataracts
- •6.4.2.6 Flomax® Intraoperative Floppy Iris Syndrome USST
- •6.4.3 Discussion
- •References
- •6.5 Capsulorhexis
- •References
- •References
- •6.7 Biaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery: Techniques and Sample Surgical Parameters
- •6.8.1 Surgical Technique
- •6.8.2 Advantages
- •6.8.3 Disadvantages
- •6.8.4 Final Thoughts
- •References
- •6.9 BiMICS vs. CoMICS: Our Actual Technique (Bimanual Micro Cataract Surgery vs. Coaxial Micro Cataract Surgery)
- •6.9.1 Introduction
- •6.9.2 Historical Background
- •6.9.3 BiMICS. BiManual MicroIncision Cataract Surgery
- •6.9.3.1 Introduction
- •6.9.3.2 Instrumentation
- •6.9.3.5 Phacotips
- •6.9.3.6 Capsulorhexis
- •6.9.3.7 Phaco Knives
- •6.9.3.8 The Phaco Machines
- •6.9.3.9 Phaco Pumps
- •6.9.3.10 Ultrasound Power Delivery
- •6.9.3.11 IOL Implantation
- •6.9.3.12 Astigmatism
- •6.9.4.1 Capsulorhexis
- •6.9.4.2 Phacotips
- •6.9.4.3 The Phaco Machines
- •6.9.4.4 Phaco Pumps
- •6.9.4.5 Ultrasound Power Delivery
- •6.9.4.6 Irrigation-Aspiration
- •6.9.4.7 Incision-Assisted IOL Implantation
- •6.9.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •6.10 Endophthalmitis Prevention
- •6.10.1 Antibiotic Prophylaxis
- •6.10.2 Wound Construction
- •6.10.3 Summary
- •References
- •7.1 High Myopia
- •7.2 Posterior Polar Cataract
- •7.3 Posterior Subluxed Cataracts
- •7.4 Mature Cataract with Zonular Dialysis
- •7.5 Punctured Posterior Capsule
- •7.6 Posterior Capsule Rupture
- •7.7 Pseudoexfoliation
- •7.8 Rock-Hard Nuclei
- •7.9 Switching Hands
- •7.10 Microcornea or Microphthalmos
- •7.11 Large Iridodialysis and Zonular Defects
- •7.12 Intraoperative Floppy Iris Syndrome (IFIS)
- •7.14 Iris Bombé
- •7.15 Very Shallow Anterior Chambers
- •7.16 Refractive Lens Exchange
- •7.18 Intraocular Cautery
- •7.19 Biaxial Microincision Instruments
- •References
- •7.1 MICS in Special Cases: Incomplete Capsulorhexis
- •7.1.1 Introduction
- •7.1.2 Avoiding Complications While Constructing Your Microcapsulorhexis
- •7.1.3 Avoiding Complications During Biaxial Phaco with an Incomplete Capsulorhexis
- •7.1.4 Avoiding Complications During IOL Insertion with an Incomplete Capsulorhexis
- •7.1.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •7.2 MICS in Special Cases (on CD): Vitreous Loss
- •7.2.1 Introduction
- •7.2.2 Posterior Capsule Tears and Vitreous Prolapse
- •7.2.3 Vitreous and the Epinucleus or Cortex
- •7.2.4 Different Techniques Other than Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Nuclear Loss in Vitreous
- •7.2.5 Pars Plana Vitrectomy
- •7.2.6 Zonulolysis
- •References
- •7.3 How to Deal with Very Hard and Intumescent Cataracts
- •7.3.1 Introduction
- •7.3.2 Types of Cataracts
- •7.3.3 Management of Hard Cataracts Through Biaxial Technique
- •7.3.4 Incision
- •7.3.5 Capsulorrhexis
- •7.3.6 Hydrodissection
- •7.3.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •8. IOL Types and Implantation Techniques
- •8.1 MICS Intraocular Lenses
- •8.1.1 Introduction
- •8.1.2 Lenses
- •8.1.2.2 ThinOptX MICS IOLs (ThinOptX, Abingdon, VA)
- •8.1.2.3 Akreos MI60 AO Micro Incision IOL (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY)
- •8.1.2.4 IOLtech MICS lens (IOLtech, La Rochelle, France; and Carl Zeiss Meditec, Stuttgard, Germany)
- •8.1.3 Optical Quality of MICS IOLs
- •8.1.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.2 Implantation Techniques
- •8.2.2 Prerequisites to a Sub-2 Injection
- •8.2.3 IOLs Used for Injection Through Microincision
- •8.2.3.1 Material
- •8.2.3.2 Design
- •8.2.3.3 Optic Design
- •8.2.3.4 Haptic Design
- •8.2.3.5 Posterior Barrier (360°)
- •8.2.4 Injectors Meant for Microincision
- •8.2.4.1 Objectives of Injectors Meant for Microincision
- •8.2.4.2 Characteristics of Sub-2 Injectors
- •8.2.4.3 The Cartridges
- •Loading Chambers
- •Injection Tunnels and Cartridge Tips
- •8.2.4.4 The Plunger Tips (or plunger)
- •8.2.4.5 Pushing Systems
- •8.2.4.6 Injector Bodies
- •8.2.4.7 Principal Sub-2 Injectors
- •8.2.5 Visco Elastic Substances and Injection Through Microincision
- •8.2.6 Techniques of Sub-2 Injection
- •8.2.6.2 Incision Construction
- •8.2.6.3 Pressurization of the Anterior Chamber
- •8.2.6.4 Loading the Cartridge
- •8.2.6.5 Loading the Injector
- •8.2.6.6 Insertion of the Plunger Tip
- •8.2.6.7 Injection in the Anterior Chamber
- •8.2.6.8 Positioning the IOL in the Capsular Bag
- •8.2.6.9 Removing the VES
- •8.2.6.10 Thin Roller Injector
- •8.2.6.11 Conclusion
- •Reference
- •8.3 Special Lenses
- •8.3.1 Toric Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery and Refractive Lens Exchange
- •8.3.1.1 Introduction
- •8.3.1.3 T-IOL Calculation
- •8.3.1.4 Current T-IOL Models
- •8.3.1.5 Preoperative Marking
- •8.3.1.6 Clinical Indications
- •8.3.1.7 Custom-Made Lenses
- •8.3.1.8 Conclusion for Practice
- •References
- •8.3.2 Special Lenses: MF
- •8.3.2.1 Discussion
- •8.3.2.2 Conclusion
- •8.3.2.3 Outlook
- •References
- •8.3.3 Special Lenses: Aspheric
- •References
- •8.3.4 Intraocular Lenses to Restore and Preserve Vision Following Cataract Surgery
- •8.3.4.1 Introduction
- •8.3.4.2 Why Filter Blue Light?
- •Summary
- •8.3.4.3 Importance of Blue Light to Cataract and Refractive Lens Exchange Patients
- •Summary
- •8.3.4.4 Quality of Vision with Blue Light Filtering IOLs
- •Summary
- •8.3.4.5 Clinical Experience
- •Summary
- •8.3.4.6 Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations
- •References
- •8.3.5 Microincision Intraocular Lenses: Others
- •8.3.5.1 ThinOptX®
- •8.3.5.2 Smart IOL
- •8.3.5.4 AcriTec
- •8.3.5.5 Akreos
- •8.3.5.7 Rayner
- •8.3.5.8 Injectable Polymers
- •8.3.5.9 Final Comments
- •References
- •9. Outcomes
- •9.1 Safety: MICS versus Coaxial Phaco
- •9.1.1 Introduction
- •9.1.2 Visual Outcomes
- •9.1.3 Incision Damage
- •9.1.4 Corneal Incision Burn
- •9.1.5 Corneal Changes
- •9.1.6 Infection
- •9.1.7 Summary
- •References
- •9.2 Control of Corneal Astigmatism and Aberrations
- •9.2.1 Introduction: Impacts of MICS Incision on the Outcomes of Cataract Surgery
- •9.2.2 Objective Evaluation of Corneal Incision
- •9.2.3 Control of Corneal Aberration and Astigmatism with MICS
- •9.2.4 Role of Corneal Aberrometry in Evaluating MICS Incision
- •9.2.5 Role of OCT in Evaluating MICS Incision
- •9.2.6 Our Experience in Corneal Aberrations and Astigmatism After MICS
- •9.2.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •9.3 Corneal Endothelium and Other Safety Issues
- •9.4 Incision Quality in MICS
- •9.4.1 Introduction: History of Incision Size Reduction
- •9.4.2 The Trends Towards Microincision Cataract Surgery (BMICS)
- •9.4.3 Advantages of Minimizing the Incision Size
- •9.4.4 Model for the Analysis of Corneal Incision Quality [21]
- •9.4.5 Our Protocol for Evaluation of Incision Quality in BMICS [21]
- •9.4.6 Results
- •9.4.6.1 Visual, Refractive and Biomicroscopic Outcomes
- •9.4.6.2 Incision Imaging (OCT) Outcomes
- •9.4.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •INDEX
9.1 Safety: MICS versus Coaxial Phaco |
283 |
Fig. 9.1.15 ECL related to cataract density in MICS (from Tsuneoka et al. [21])
Cataract |
Endo Cell Loss % |
Grade |
|
|
|
1 |
4.6 +/- 12.8 |
|
|
2 |
6.9 +/- 16.5 |
|
|
3 |
10.8 +/- 12.4 |
|
|
4-5 |
15.6 +/- 13.7 |
|
|
The amount of ECL is proportional to the density of cataract being emulsified, and this is also true for MICS, as has been reported by Tsuneoka et al. [21] (see Fig. 9.1.15).
Corneal damage as assessed by ECL is similar whether coaxial phaco or MICS is employed to remove cataracts.
9.1.6 Infection
Endophthalmitis in cataract surgery has been proposed to be associated with many factors including incision construction and location; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative use of antibiotics; surgical trauma; and patient health. Some authors have claimed that clear corneal incisions compared to scleral incisions are at increased risk of endophthalmitis due to decreased integrity of the incision and delayed incision healing [40–43]. Scleral and near limbal incisions are thought to have decreased infection due to the ability of the
a
conjunctiva to cover the wound and allow for faster incision sealing. The causal nature of clear corneal incisions in endophthalmitis is controversial and no clear connection has been made.
It has been proposed that as MICS incisions are smaller than coaxial and microcoaxial incisions, there may be potential features of the incisions which would make them prone to allowing ingress of infectious fluids.
In a comparison study of clear corneal incisions in cadaver eyes, looking at MICS, microcoaxial and coaxial phaco, it has been suggested that MICS incisions are prone to leakage. The authors used India ink to determine if there was penetration into the eyes and found that both MICS eyes allowed India ink into the incision compared to one standard coaxial and none of the microcoaxial eyes [13] (see Fig. 9.1.16a, b). They hypothesized that MICS incisions would be prone to allowing ingress of fluid and infection.
In a rabbit study of MICS and micocoaxial phaco, in which 0.5 mL of Staphylococcal epidermidis culture was placed on the cornea for 2 min, following surgery, it was found that there was greater penetration of bacteria into the MICS eyes (1358.1 vs. 250.9 CFU per 0.1 mL of aqueous fluid) [44]. The authors proposed that oar locking of the irrigating and phaco tips in the MICS wound might cause distortion of the wound, resulting in wound leakage and allowing for hypotony and ingress of extraocular fluid.
Fig. 9.1.16 (a) India ink penetration: clear corneal incisions after phacoemulsification in cadaver eyes (from Berdahl et al. [13]) (b) India ink penetration: clear corneal incisions after phacoemulsification in cadaver eyes (from Berdahl et al. [13])
MICS (2/2) |
Microcoaxial (0/2) |
Standard Coaxial (1/2) |
b
MICS |
Microcoaxial |
284 |
G. H. H. Beiko |
In these studies, incisions with parallel sides were constructed which facilitates greater damage from oar locking than if trapezoidal incisions had been made. With trapezoidal incisions, the oar locking only occurs at the internal lip of the incision and thus trauma is minimized (Fine, personal communication).
Despite these laboratory studies suggesting greater risk of endophthalmitis with MICS, there have been no reports of any epidemics of infection with MICS. In fact, a literature search found a mention of one case report, in which endophthalmitis developed on day 4 post-op. Clinically, there was fibrin present at the incision at 7 o’clock incision, which was in contact with the inferior fornix. This infection grew alpha-hemolytic
Streptococcus [45].
It is this author’s opinion that the lack of clinical correlation to the laboratory findings is that the smaller MICS incisions, if properly hydrated at the end of the case, are closed tighter than larger coaxial incisions. This would explain the lack of increased endophthalmitis.
9.1.7 Summary
This author has been performing exclusively MICS for the past 6 years. All the reasons stated at the beginning of the chapter were the appeal in transitioning to MICS. There have been no safety concerns related to MICS. The control during surgery and the visual outcomes are the main reasons for my continued implementation of this technique.
Take Home Pearls
ßVisual outcomes and rehabilitation with MICS superior than coaxial surgery
ßIncision damage minimal and comparable to coaxial phaco
ßNo increase in corneal incision burn despite use of sleeveless phaco tip
ßSuperior vision with MICS than coaxial due to less induced astigmatism and higher-order
aberrations
ßEndothelial cell loss comparable to coaxial phaco
ßNo increase in infection with MICS compared to coaxial phaco
References
1.Shock JP (1972) Removal of cataracts with ultrasonic fragmentation and continuous irrigation. Trans Pac Coast Otoophthalmol Soc Annu Meet 53:139–144
2.Girard LJ (1978) Ultrasonic fragmentation for cataract extraction and cataract complications. Adv Ophthalmol 37: 127–135
3.Shearing SP, Relyca RL, Louiza A et al (1985) Routine phacoemulsification through a one millimeter non-sutured incision. Cataract 2:6–11
4.Alio JL (2004) What does MICS require? In: Alio JL, Rodriquez-Prats JL, Gala A (eds) MICS micro-incision cataract surgery. Highlights of Ophthalmlogy International, Miami
5.Brooks L, Cipres MC 1.8 mm Biaxial White Paper. A review of the literature; B & L internal document
6.Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Packer M (2004) Why we prefer bimanual microincisional phacoemulsification. Cataract Ref Surg Today 9:43–46
7.Kurz S, Krummenauer F Gabriel P, Pfeiffer N, Dick HB (2006) Biaxial microincision versus coaxial small incision clear corneal cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 113(10):1818–1826
8.Alio J, Rodriguez-Prats JL, Galal A, Ramzy M (2005) Outcomes of microincision cataract surgery versus coaxial phacoemulsification. Ophthalmology 112(11):1997–2003
9.Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Packer M (2004) Optimizing refractive lens exchange with bimanual microincision phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 30:550–554
10.Braga-Mele R, Lui E (2003) Feasibility of sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification with the millenium microsurgical system. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:2199–2203
11.Agarwal A, Agarwal A Agarwal S et al (2001) Phaconit:
phacoemulsification through a 0.9 mm corneal incision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 27(10):1548–1552
12.Krootila K, Matilla J (2006) Effect of fluidics on postoperative outcomes in bimanual phaco using the Whitestar micropulse technology. In: ESCRS Annual Meeting, London
13.Berdahl JP et al (2007) Corneal wound architecture and integrity after phacoemulsification. Evaluation of coaxial, micorincisional coaxial and microincisional bimanual techniques. J Catarct Refract Surg 33(3):510–515
14.Weikert M, Koch D (2006) Corneal wound architecture in bimanual and coaxial microincisional cataract surgery. In: ESCRS Annual Meeting, London
15.Sporl E, Genth U, Schmalfuss K, Seiler T (1997) Thermomechanical behaviour of the cornea. Ger J Ophthalmol 6:322–327
16.Goldblatt WS, Finger PT, Perry HD et al (1989) Hyperthermic treatment of rabbit corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 30: 1778–1783
17.Steinert RF, Schafer ME (2003) Thermal energy and turbulence with WhiteStar and conventional phacoemulsification. In: Annual Meeting of ASCRS
18.Donnenfeld E et al (2003) Efficacy and wound-temperature gradient of WhiteStar phacoemulsification through a 1.2 m incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 29(6):1097–1100
19.Soscia W et al (2002) Microphacoemulsification with WhiteStar: a wound-temperature study. J Cataract Refract Surg 28: 1044–1046
20.Fabian E (2002) Bimanual phaco and temperature using new phaco-software (WhiteStar). In: ESCRS, Nice, France
9.1 Safety: MICS versus Coaxial Phaco |
285 |
21. Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y (2002) Ultrasonic phacoemulsification using 1.4 mm incision: clinical results. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:81–86
22.Schafer ME (2008) Thermal characterization of phacoemulsification tips. In: ESCRS Annual Meeting, Berlin
23.Pesudovs K, Dietze H, Stewart OG et al (2005) Effect of cataract surgery incision location and intraocular lens type on ocular aberrations. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:725–734
24.Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y (2001) Feasibility of ultrasound cataract surgery with a 1.4 mm incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:934–940
25.Ke Yao, Xiajing Tang, Panpan Ye (2006) Corneal astigmatism, higher order aberrations, and optical quality after cataract surgery: microincision versus small incision. J Refract Surg 22:S1079–S1082
26.Koch D (2003) Cataract surgery through a 2.0 mm incision: results of bimanual phaco-chop technique and acrylic IOL implantation. In: ASCRS Meeting, San Francisco
27.Elkady B, Ortiz D, Montalbán R (2008) Corneal aberrations after microincision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34(1):40–45
28.Marcos S et al (2007) Change in corneal aberrations after cataract surgery with two types of aspherical intraocular lenses. JCRS 33(2):217–226
29.Alió JL, Schimchak P, Montés-Micó R, Galal A (2005) Retinal image quality after microincision intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(8):1557–1560
30.Bellucci R, Morselli S (2008) Aberration control in cataract surgery with the Akreos MI60 microincision IOL. In: ASCRS Presentation, Chicago
31.Landesz M, Siertsema JV, Van Rij G (1995) Comparative study of three semiautomated specular microscopes. J Cataract Refract Surg 21(4):409–416
32.ProbstLE,HakimOJ,NicholsBD(1994)Phacoemulsification with aspirated or retained Viscoat. J Cataract Refract Surg 20(2):145–149
33.Edelhauser HF, Sanders DR, Azar R, Lamielle H; ICL in Treatment of Myopia Study Group (2004) Corneal endothelial assessment after ICL implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(3):576–583
34.Crema AS et al (2007) Comparative study of coaxial phacoemulsificaiton and microincisonal cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1014–1018
35.Mencucci R et al (2006) Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: MICS vs standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1351–1354
36.Mathys K et al (2007) Determining factors for corneal endothelial cell loss by using bimanual microincisional phacoemulsification and power modulation. Cornea 26(9): 1049–1055
37.Cavallini GM, Campi L, Masini C, Pelloni S, Pupino A (2007) Bimanual microphacoemulsification versus coaxial miniphacoemulsification: prospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(3):387–392
38.Kahraman G, Franz C, Prinz A, Abela-Formanek C (2007) Intraindividual comparison of surgical trauma after bimanual microincision and conventional small-incision coaxial phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(4):618–622
39.Beiko GHH (2005) Endothelial cell loss with micro-incisional cataract surgery. In: Presented ASCRS Annual Meeting, Washington
40.McDonnell PJ et al (2003) Dynamic morphology of clear corneal cataract incisions. Ophthal 110:2342–2348
41.Taban M et al (2004) Dynamic morphology of sutureless cataract wounds-effect of incision angle and location. Surv Ophthal 49(Suppl 2):S62–S72
42.Taban M et al (2005) Ingress of India ink into the anterior chamber through sutureless clear corneal cataract wounds. Arch Ophthal 123:643–648
43.John ME, Noblitt R (2001) Endophthalmitis: scleral tunnel versus clear corneal incision. In: Buzzard K, Friedlander MH Febbraro JL (eds) The blue line incision and refractive phacoemulisification. Slack, NJ
44.Gajjar D et al (2007) Ingress of bacterial inoculum into the anterior chamber after bimanual and microcoaxial phacoemulsification in rabbits. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(12): 2129–2134
45.Chee SP (2005) Bascal K-endophthalmitis after microincisional cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 31: 1834–1835