- •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
2 MICS Instrumentation |
31 |
factor was to connect the irrigating performance of the cannula with the mechanical properties of the chopper. The small diameter of the instrument was a challenge. Olson, Fine, Nagahara, and Tsuneoka made the first infusion cannulas with a high flow. Their cannulas had liquid flow up to 60 mL/min. Nevertheless, the first MICS cannula with a liquid flow of more than than 70 mL/min was the Alio’s MICS Irrigating Stinger. This chopper has a high liquid infusion efficiency. All these infusion cannulas satisfy the requirements of MICS fluidics.
Fig. 2.19 Nichamin triple choppers (Rhein Medical Inc)
Fig. 2.20 Akahoshi super micro combo prechopper (Asico LLC).
Fig. 2.21 Fukasaku hydrochop canula (Katena Inc)
Akahoshi Super Micro Combo prechopper can also be useful to make MICS nucleotomy. This 20 gauge combo prechopper is able to fit through a 1.2 mm incision (Cat. No. AE-4287 Asico LLC). The cataract lens can divide before phacoemulsification and without nuclear grooving (Fig. 2.20).
The Fukasaku hydrochop canula (Cat. No. K7-5462, Katena Inc) is also useful in dividing the nucleus. Thin cannula with liquid irrigation can divide the nucleus into parts (Fig. 2.21).
2.5MICS Irrigation/Aspiration Instruments
2.5.1 19 G Instruments
Irrigation Cannulas. The phacoemulsification can start when the quadrants are divided. In bimanual surgery, both incisions are involved in fluid transport. Use of irrigation cannula is obligatory. Infusion cannula has an additional application in MICS. It functions as both, chopper and manipulator. The end of the instrument, which is provided with a special hook, facilitates tearing and crumbling large fragments of the masses. It is very useful in the first part of nuclei phacoemulsification. The plane end is very practical to manipulate the masses and translocate them to the phaco tip or the aspiration cannula, when small fragments or soft cortical masses circulate in the anterior chamber.
The irrigation hole of the MICS irrigation tool should be on the bottom of the lower side. The diameter of the hole is 1 mm. Very thin walls and increased internal diameter of the instrument allows achieving irrigation in borders 72 cm3/min. The stability of the anterior chamber is the result of irrigation, and direction of the liquid to the lens masses at the bag back (Fig. 2.22).
Other ideas of fluidics management and ultrasound power management have led to the development of
newer types of irrigating choppers. The most important Fig. 2.22 Posterior irrigation in the irrigating cannula
32 |
J. L. Alió et al. |
The strength of the stream permits the bag to be held at a safe distance from the phacoemulsification tip and at the same time, enables convenient manipulations of the tools and lens masses. Additionally, this stream can clean the back bag from remaining cortical cells. A stream to the back bag is provided for the preservation of corneal endothelial cells before mechanical and thermal damage, instead of the cannulas with lateral holes. The posteriordirected stream gives the masses from the posterior chamber, the opportunity to circulate directly to the phaco tip. This helps the surgeon to avoid putting the phaco tip inside the capsular bag.
While starting phacoemulsification, vacuum levels should be set at 500–550mmHg as the process involves pressured infusion. In most cases, when the cataract is not very hard, Alio’s MICS hydromanipulator irrigating fingernail can be used. This makes it possible to divide and aspirate fragment masses of the lens without using ultrasound or torsional energy or to use them in the minimum way. In the case of hard cataracts, when total occlusion of the tip makes aspiration impossible, the Stinger Alio’s MICS Irrigating Chopper would be more useful. This tool has a narrow edge at the end, which divides the masses and allows easy aspiration of the phacoemulsification tip. The fragmented elements of the hard cataracts are now easily aspirated, using the high under pressure and, at times, using ultrasound energy.
The Alio’s MICS hydromanipulator irrigating fingernail (Cat. No. K7-5860 Katena Inc) is the first tool inserted in the anterior chamber during this stage of operation (Fig. 2.23).
This tool’s end is shaped like a fingernail. It helps to remove rather soft cataracts. The tool that allows the removal of harder cataracts is Alio’s MICS Irrigating Stinger (Cat. No. K7-5861, Katena Inc) (Fig. 2.24).
Fig. 2.23 Alio’s original fingernail MICS irrigating hydromanipulator (Katena Inc)
Fig. 2.24 Alio’s MICS irrigating stinger (Katena Inc)
Fig. 2.25 Fine Olson 19ga chopper (Storz, Bausch & Lomb)
Fig. 2.26 Nagahara 20G irrigating chopper (Storz, Bausch & Lomb)
Fig. 2.27 Tsuneoka irrigating chopper tip 20 (ASICO LLC)
Fig. 2.28 Olson 20g irrigating chopper (Rhein Medical Inc)
Fine Olson 19ga chopper is a bimanual irrigating chopping instrument with an angled chopping tip. The irrigating hole is on the lateral side of the instrument (Cat. No. MVS1099 Storz, Bausch & Lomb) (Fig. 2.25).
Nagahara 20G chopper is for bimanual irrigation chopping The irrigating hole is on the lateral side of the instrument (Cat. No. MVS1095 Storz, Bausch & Lomb) (Fig. 2.26).
Duo Max Tsuneoka irrigating chopper tip 20 guage has large dual oval ports at the distal end for maximum irrigation. The side port configuration avoids pushing away the nucleus being chopped (Cat. No. AE7-3028 ASICO LLC) (Fig. 2.27).
Olson 20g Irrigating Chopper is the instrument with openend irrigation. It can be used in 1.4 mm incision surgery (Cat. No. 8-14548, Rhein Medical Inc) (Fig. 2.28). Aspiration cannula. The aspiration cannula has a smaller internal diameter than the irrigation cannula.
2 MICS Instrumentation |
33 |
Fig. 2.29 Alio’s MICS aspiration handpiece (Katena Inc)
Fig. 2.30 Oasis bimanual microincisional kit (Oasis Medical)
Fig. 2.31 MST Duet® BiManual system (MST, Redmond)
Fig. 2.32 Fine/Olsen irrigating chopper 20G (Storz, Bausch & Lomb)
This will cause disproportion in the resistance of flow between infusion and aspiration and will guarantee the anterior chamber stability. The increase in the depth of the anterior chamber causes the movement of the lens diaphragm. This can cause the lens masses movement into the space behind the iris. Masses can be placed between the iris and the anterior bag in the space surrounding the sulcus which does not allow the masses to be seen. However, the masses can be seen in the anterior chamber after few hours of the operation. Rinsing out and cleaning this space is extremely important.
The stability of the anterior chamber, in case of MICS, is definitely higher than in coaxial phacoemulsification. MICS does not cause frequent and considerable changes in the proportion anatomy of the eyeball and there is no traction during the operation. It is possible to maintain the anterior chamber stable from the capsulorhexis to the OVD injection before lens implantation during the MICS surgery [11].
Alio’sMICSAspirationHandpiece(Cat.No.K7-5820, Katena Inc) also serves to remove the remains of cortical masses. It has a port diameter of 0.3mm (Fig. 2.29).
Oasis bimanual kit for 19 and 21 guage surgeries have instruments with open or closed ended curved textured tips. This is the singe use tip. The blue irrigation handpiece has dual oval port with a diameter of 0.5 mm. The purple aspiration handpiece has one round port of 0.3 mm (Cat. No. 1719, Oasis Medical) (Fig. 2.30).
2.5.2 21 G Instruments
The minimization of MICS tools surgery allows us to carry out phaco through 0.7 mm. Part of the standard MICS tools can be adapted to 0.7 mm MICS, but
Fig. 2.33 Olson Cannula irrigating chopper 21G (Rhein Medical Inc)
irrigation and aspiration cannulas are not fitted. The 22G Alio Stinger irrigating chopper Duet System (MST, Redmond, WA) allows to perform the 0.7 mm MICS through 1 mm incision (Fig. 2.31).
The decreased thickness of the walls and the appropriate internal profile gives an opportunity to achieve the required inflow of the fluid into the anterior chamber. Stinger irrigating chopper 22G also has a narrow edge at the end, this allows to divide and conduct the masses into the aspiration cannula.
Fine/Olsen irrigating chopper is an openended 20 guage instrument, especially designed forMICS. This instrument has external diameter of 0.89 mm. It allows easy insertion into MICS incision (Fig. 2.32) (Cat. No. MVS2000 20 Storz, Bausch & Lomb).
Olson Cannula irrigating chopper 21G is the instrument with horizontal infusion holes (Cat. No. 91-7146-L, Rhein Medical Inc) (Fig. 2.33).
The oasis set for 21 and 23 guage cataract surgery is composed of two I/A handpieces. The instruments have
