- •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
84 |
R. Packard |
5.3.2Using the Alcon Infiniti and AMO Signature for MICS
Richard Packard
Core Messages
ßBoth the Infiniti and the Signature will allow the surgeon to perform CMICS and BMICS.
ßUnderstand the ultrasound delivery technology and choose a phaco needle suitable for your
needs. The Infiniti has Ozil and the Signature has Ellips.
ßFluidics requirements will depend on the phaco tip in use and so adjust them accordingly to
achieve best results. Smaller needles need higher settings.
ßRemember about leakage from incisions which is critical in both CMICS and BMICS. Excessive
leakage will cause the surgeon to alter fluidics settings unnecessarily.
ßOnce the cataract has been removed, woundassisted lens insertion is necessary to enable
incision size to be kept at a minimum.
5.3.2.1 Introduction
With the improvements in modulated ultrasound delivery and fluidics, smaller and smaller incisions for cataract surgery have become a reality for most surgeons. This chapter describes the way this author uses two of the machines (Alcon Infiniti and AMO Signature) that have been leading the move to MICS, whether it is biaxial or coaxial. The technology for ultrasound and fluidics as well as phaco tips available on these two machines will be discussed in different clinical situations using these smaller incisions.
5.3.2.2 Technology on the Alcon Infiniti
The Infiniti was introduced in 2003 with micropulsing and microburst capability, which means that ultrasound
R. Packard
Prince Charles Eye Unit, Windsor, England e-mail: mpacker@finemd.com
energy could be delivered in pulses of a few milliseconds. These could be used either as a continuous stream of these very short pulses of variable length and interval or at an increasing frequency up to a predetermined level. Both micropulse and microburst can be used in a linear manner to preset maximum power. The longitudinal tip movement which is traditional had torsional movement added to it in 2005. This appears to be a more efficient way of removing tissue, as there is almost no repulsion and better followability with lower aspiration flow settings. In addition, Alcon have now added the ability to set a lower as well as a higher threshold for power. This torsional phaco called Ozil is delivered in a linear manner but is measured differently from traditional phaco power; therefore, the power used is recorded as CDE (cumulative delivered energy). Ozil can be used as a continuous stream or in micropulse or burst mode. The author has reported that least energy is used in Ozil microburst mode at the expense of slightly increased foot pedal time in foot position three when compared with continuous Ozil. Micropulse Ozil seems to be the least efficient of the three modes. Although some recommend the use of a burst of longitudinal power in front of the torsional for denser nuclei, this author has not found it necessary. In order for Ozil to work effectively, some form of curved phaco needle is required to allow for the rotatory movement of the tip.
5.3.2.3 Setting Up the Infiniti for MICS
The parameters used depend on a number of different factors; the most import are, however, the phaco tip and the preferred irrigating chopper in case BMICS is used. Of course the height of the irrigation bottle will also influence the amount of fluid available to keep the anterior chamber stable. This author usually keeps the setting at 110 mm but the actual height, to be fully accurate, must be related to the position of the patient’s eye.
5.3.2.4Importance of Tip Size on Machine Fluidics Settings with the Infiniti
Alcon are offering a number of tip options for the Infiniti to be used for MICS and Ozil. However, the company is aiming at 2.2 mm incisions using CMICS as its flagship approach. Accordingly, there are both tips and sleeves
5.3.2 Using the Alcon Infiniti and AMO Signature for MICS |
85 |
matched for this. The Ultra sleeve comes in two versions, a green one for the 1.1mm Flared Kelman tip and a pink one for the 0.9 mm Tapered Kelman, Mini-flared Kelman, Mini-flared 12° with up and down bevel tips. These are all ABS (aspiration bypass system) tips with a small hole drilled on the side that is supposed to assist in occlusion break control. These are not suitable for BMICS, however, because of the ABS port which may suck up the iris. All of the above tips have some sort of restriction in their diameter along the shaft to increase resistance to lessen the impact of occlusion break on the anterior chamber stability. The need for these sorts of changes is driven by the lower amounts of irrigation fluid entering the eye due to smaller incision sizes. The selection of CMICS tip becomes even more complicated as the 0.9 mm tips are available in both a 30 and 45° bevel. One of the disadvantages of restricted tips is clogging, particularly when harder cataracts are emulsified. In order to overcome this, a 45° tip which is a more efficient cutter works best. This author prefers to use a 30° Kelman non ABS non restricted tip for CMICS using the green Ultra sleeve (Fig. 5.28). The reasons for this are:
1.No clogging
2.Better tissue hold with less vacuum due to no leakage by the tip
3.Easier occlusion of 30° tip for chopping
4.Excellent cutting with Ozil
In order to improve fluid flow into the eye through the smaller incision, the author has designed a new tip for CMICS which can also be used for BMICS; it works
Fig. 5.28 0.9 mm Kelman tip in 2.2mm incision
with all phaco platforms. The basic shape is the standard 0.9 mm Kelman tip, but the overall diameter is reduced to 700 μm and the wall is very thin with an internal diameter of 570μm.
Owing to different internal diameters and the presence or absence of ABS with these different tips, the fluidics settings will vary to achieve the most efficient tissue removal and at the same time a stable anterior chamber. Table 5.4 summarizes the settings, this author uses for CMICS with these tips. The Infiniti has a function called Dynamic Rise which speeds or slows the pump speed on occlusion, according to the surgeon’s preference for a particular case or their skill level. The
Table 5.4 Settings for the Infiniti using a variety of tips available for CMICS and BMICS
Tip |
Sleeve |
Sculpting |
Segment |
|
|
setting |
removal |
|
|
|
setting |
1.1 mm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Flared |
green |
50 mmHg |
300 mmHg |
Kelman |
|
aspiration |
AFR 25 ml/ |
ABS |
|
flow rate |
min |
|
|
(AFR) |
Dynamic |
|
|
20 ml/min |
Rise 2 |
0.9 mm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Tapered |
pink |
60 mmHg |
400 mmHg |
Kelman |
|
AFR 25 ml/ |
AFR 28 ml/ |
Microtip |
|
min |
min |
ABS |
|
|
Dynamic |
|
|
|
Rise 3 |
0.9 mm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Mini- |
pink |
60 mmHg |
400 mmHg |
flared |
|
AFR 25 ml/ |
AFR 35 ml/ |
Kelman |
|
min |
min |
ABS 30 |
|
|
Dynamic |
and 45° |
|
|
rise 3 |
0.9 mm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Mini- |
pink |
60 mmHg |
400 mmHg |
flared |
|
AFR 25 ml/ |
AFR 35 ml/ |
12° ABS |
|
min |
min |
30 and |
|
|
Dynamic |
45° |
|
|
rise 3 |
0.9 mm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Kelman |
green |
50 mmHg |
350 mmHg |
Microtip |
|
AFR 25 ml/ |
AFR 28 ml/ |
non |
|
min |
min |
ABS 30° |
|
|
Dynamic |
|
|
|
rise 3 |
700 μm |
Ultra |
Vacuum |
Vacuum |
Kelman |
pink |
70 mmHg |
400 mmHg |
non |
|
AFR 26 ml/ |
AFR 30 ml/ |
ABS 30° |
|
min |
min |
|
|
|
Dynamic |
|
|
|
rise 3 |
86 |
R. Packard |
settings that this author uses are included in the table. A Dynamic Rise of 3 will cause the pump speed to go up by 100% on occlusion to speed the time taken to reach maximum preset vacuum.
There is going to be a new sleeve called the Nano sleeve for CMICS at 1.8 mm, which the author has used extensively, and works very well with the same fluidics settings when the Mini-flared and 700μm tips are used (Fig. 5.29).
In order to assist further with minimizing the effects of post occlusion surge, Alcon have introduced new thicker, less compliant tubing as part of a whole package called Intrepid.
As with all MICS, getting the incision size right to minimize fluid leakage is critical which applies as much to CMICS as BMICS. The main source of leakage in CMICS is the side port incision. Accordingly, the author has designed a special, double ended, second instrument with a thickened shaft (Fat Boy Chopper, Duckworth and Kent, England) to fill the side port and lessen leakage (Fig. 5.30).
Fig. 5.29 700 μm Kelman tip in action with Fat Boy chopper
Fig. 5.30 Fat Boy chopper
This instrument is very versatile for cracking and chopping all sorts of hardness of cataract.
5.3.2.5Setting the Ultrasound Power and Modulation with the Infiniti for MICS
In order to perform both types of MICS safely, it is important to use some form of power modulation to minimize heat rise in the wound. Although this is more important in BMICS, it becomes more of an issue in CMICS than conventional coaxial phaco because of the thinner sleeve and tighter wound. Ozil, even in continuous form, produces much less heat rise in the tip than longitudinal phaco. The author uses it in continuous linear form with a preset maximum of 50% for soft and medium nuclei and 100% for dense ones. This is just to sculpt a small hole in the nucleus to allow the Kelman tip to bury deep in the nucleus for chopping. For the actual chopping and segment removal the settings are changed to microburst Ozil as mentioned above. The on time for the burst is 35 ms and the off time when the foot pedal is fully depressed is 40 ms. The maximum power is set at 100%. This sort of setting will produce CDE readings of the order of 2–3 for soft cataracts, 6–7 for medium and up to 25 for really dense ones. Using continuous Ozil for segment removal will lead to much higher energy usage which is not necessary.
5.3.2.6 The Infiniti and BMICS
Although Alcon as a company have been much more active in pushing the CMICS agenda with a 2.2 mm incision, the Infiniti can be used perfectly well for BMICS. The author first used it in that way in 2004 and it works well with Ozil also using the non ABS 0.9 mm Kelman tip. As with all BMICS, an irrigating chopper is required and the design and size of this is critical to the machine settings (Fig. 5.31). Irrigating choppers vary considerably as to the amount of irrigating fluid that they are capable of releasing. It is important to choose a chopper that gives at least 60 ml/min. With less than this, the machine fluidics settings will need to be considerably reduced to maintain a stable anterior chamber. This author has designed a chopper with a flow rate of over 80 ml/min, thus the fluidics settings as in Table 5.4 do not need altering.
5.3.2 Using the Alcon Infiniti and AMO Signature for MICS |
87 |
Fig. 5.31 Packard irrigating chopper (Duckworth and Kent, England)
As with all BMICS, part of the balance is about getting the incision sizes right for the instruments going into the eye. The 0.9 mm phaco needle goes through 1.4 mm incision and the chopper through 1.6 mm both of these being the internal diameter of the wound. Ideally a trapezoidal wound should be created to allow instrument movement without damaging the wound and making closure at the end of the operation an issue.
5.3.2.7Technology for MICS on the AMO Signature
In 2001 on the AMO Sovereign phaco machine, the previous model to the Signature, White Star power modulation using micropulsing was introduced for the first time. This was then further modified 2 years ago with ICE (increased control and efficiency). This was a means of adding a 1 ms punch at the beginning of each pulse of phaco energy at a higher power. The punch could be programmed to stay the same as the energy increases, or be either increased or decreased as the rest of the energy is increased. The object was to allow for enhanced cavitation by pushing a piece of nucleus away and allowing BSS (balanced salt solution) to enter the space created. Since cavitation largely occurs above 70% power settings and certainly this author uses only 40% power settings, it is debatable whether, even if this actually takes place, it is beneficial. It would be difficult to show any difference between the various settings for ICE that would help this debate. As on the Sovereign there is a range of pulse settings. It is useful to be able to use different settings for the tip in both occluded and unoccluded
modes. The note of ultrasound delivery changes as the tip occludes and long before the maximum preset vacuum is reached. There is no dedicated sleeve for CMICS available for the Signature; however, the existing yellow sleeve works well with an incision size of 2.2 mm. This is of course not important for BMICS where the sleeve is irrelevant, except to reduce spray from the phaco needle.
Issues around repulsion of nuclear material which had been a driver for other systems have also been addressed on the Signature by the introduction of a lateral movement of the phaco needle; here, it is also accompanied by a longitudinal movement. 50% of the available power goes to longitudinal and 50% to lateral movement. This is called Ellips™ to describe the sort of movement that the tip is making. It does not require a Kelman style needle to work unlike torsional movement on the Infiniti. The division of the power delivered into two components means that the settingsneedtobealteredconsiderably.Approximately double the settings are recommended, i.e., if the longitudinal setting is for 40% power, raise this to 80% for Ellips. Further, the pulse settings need to be altered to have a much higher duty cycle to be able to sculpt hard nuclei and get good burying of the tip for chopping, to remove hard nuclei. This author’s initial experience has indicated good followability compared to longitudinal alone and reduced repulsion. However the ability to cut into dense nuclei and bury the tip even with a Kelman phaco tip does not, with current settings, seem to be as good as conventional longitudinal phaco on the Signature, when pulse settings with White Star are used. As with Ozil on the Infiniti, using the Ellips technology in continuous mode works better for some parts of nuclear removal, such as sculpting and starting to bury the phaco needle for chopping.
The Signature has a development of the fluidics control seen originally on the Sovereign called CASE (chamber stabilization environment). Here in order to help post occlusion surge, the chosen vacuum in segment removal mode can be held for a time limited period of up to 3 s. Various thresholds can be set for different events in the raising and lowering of vacuum. This can be done on the screen of the Signature in an active manner by moving a cursor. It customizes the machine responses to the individual surgeon’s technique and needs in a given operative situation (Fig. 5.32).
