- •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
5.3.3 MICS with Different Platforms: Stellaris Vision Enhancement System |
89 |
Fig. 5.34 BMICS with Signature
Take Home Pearls
ßAppropriate choice of incision size, tip size, ultrasound and fluidics settings is essential for
successful MICS with either the Infiniti or Signature phaco machines.
ßWound-assisted lens insertion with minimal enlargement with BMICS and none with
CMICS completes the procedure with both these machines.
5.3.3MICS with Different Platforms: Stellaris Vision Enhancement System
Mark Packer, I. Howard Fine,
and Richard S. Hoffman
Core Messages
ßInnovative design concepts incorporated into the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System make
it a superlative choice for MICS. These concepts include monitoring and maintenance of fluidic parameters, millisecond level surgeon control of ultrasound power and ergonomic comfort and adaptability for any surgical technique.
ßThe Stellaris Vision Enhancement System is safe and effective for BMICS and CMICS.
ßThe advantages of BMICS include enhanced surgical flexibility and control made possible
by separation of inflow and outflow.
ßThe CMICS solution enables the incision to be decreased to 1.8 mm without any change in the
current coaxial phaco technique.
5.3.3.1 Innovations in Phacoemulsification
The Stellaris Vision Enhancement System (Bausch & Lomb, San Dimas, CA) represents revolutionary progress in phacoemulsification technology (Fig. 5.36). Building on the success of the Millennium, which has offered both Venturi and peristaltic pumps with dual linear foot pedal control, the Stellaris incorporates multiple advances in design. Innovative Stellaris System technology includes the Advanced Flow Module that allows intraoperative toggling between flow and vacuum modes, and also accurately monitors and maintains targeted vacuum levels and intraoperative aspiration rate; the StableChamber Pack, containing small diameter
M. Packer ( )
Oregon Health & Science University, Drs. Fine, Hoffman and Packer, 1550 Oak Street, Eugene, OR 97401, USA
e-mail: mpacker@finemd.com
90 |
M. Packer et al. |
Fig. 5.35 The Stellaris vision enhancement system presents a sleek and flexible design
tubing that increases resistance for high vacuum and steady low flow with internal mesh designed to capture material and prevent clogging; CustomControl Software II that permits millisecond range modulation ultrasound control and variable duty cycle application of 28.5 kHz ultrasound for optimized cavitation and rapid emulsification with minimal thermal loading; Bluetooth wireless dual linear foot pedal for instantaneous surgeon control of aspiration and ultrasound; and a light and agile six-crystal configuration handpiece for enhanced ergonomics and balance. These advances in technology provide real advantages for Micro Incision Cataract Surgery, both biaxial and coaxial.
The Stellaris provides solid chamber stability with EQ (equalizing) Fluidics Management Technology in vacuum or flow modes through equalization of aspiration and irrigation. This innovative system allows surgeons to equalize aspiration and irrigation for solid chamber stability in flow and vacuum modes when
Fig. 5.36 The StableChamber pack includes a mesh filter and a flow restriction which prevents surge
using advanced MICS techniques. Sensing technology accurately maintains preset vacuum and aspiration flow throughout the procedure for smooth, safe, and efficient material removal. The unique EQ technology monitors vacuum levels in flow mode, and precisely measures and controls vacuum when in vacuum mode for predictable performance. EQ-sensing technology monitors and adjusts flow to pre-emptively reduce the effects of postocclusion surge. Once occlusion breaks, Stellaris regulates the Flow in the aspiration line stabilizing the anterior chamber for increased control and safety.
In addition, the StableChamber pack controls flow for added chamber stability in high vacuum settings preferred for C and BMICS (Fig. 5.36). The pack essentially consists of small diameter tubing integrated into the aspiration line that increases resistance for high vacuum and steady low flow. Internal mesh designed to capture material and prevent clogging minimizes variability in steady state flow. The flow restriction in the StableChamber pack, together with the EQ-sensing technology that monitors and maintains stable pressure for predictable surgery, provides exceptional post occlusion surge responsiveness for rapid return to equalized state for solid chamber stability.
The Stellaris also features unique integration of lat- est-generation centrifugal pump and valve technology for responsiveness and aspiration efficiency that exceeds the performance of earlier Venturi systems. Advanced sensing technology accurately monitors and maintains targeted vacuum levels and intraoperative aspiration rate. These features safely increase the vacuum limit from 550 to 600 mmHg. Also, the Stellaris eliminates the need for an external gas supply by using an all-electric design. Additional safety features in the fluidics include real-time display of cassette fluid
5.3.3 MICS with Different Platforms: Stellaris Vision Enhancement System |
91 |
volume via an optical sensor, increased capacity 300 ml cassette and SureLock locking irrigation connectors.
On the power delivery side, the unique six-crystal handpiece is ergonomically designed for excellent balance, and accurately and consistently focuses on efficient cutting dynamics at the nucleus (Fig. 5.37). The CustomControl Software II permits millisecond level control of ultrasound application, with optimized 28.5 kHz frequency cavitation for rapid emulsification. Precise control of power modulation for customized energy wave patterns results in low overall phaco time.
Overall ultrasound energy released in the eye correlates with handpiece operating frequency – the higher the frequency, the higher the energy dose.
The lower 28.5 kHz frequency allows for optimized cavitation and rapid emulsification with minimal thermal loading. Also, an increased stroke length permits more efficient cutting of the nucleus.
Dual linear simultaneous foot pedal control of aspiration and ultrasound enhances surgical safety (Fig. 5.38).
Fig.5.37 The ergonomic six crystal handpiece is easy to hold and manipulate
Fig. 5.38 The wireless dual linear foot pedal increases flexibility in the OR and provides increased surgical control
Both the surgeon and OR staff will enjoy the convenience and freedom of the Wireless Dual-Linear foot pedal. There is instantaneous response and control of critical intraoperative surgical parameters with no discernible lag. Of course, preprogrammable foot pedal settings are customizable to surgeon technique.
An intuitive interface and video overlay allows for ease of use by OR staff for set up and priming and fast OR turnaround. The Stellaris features a modular design for easy upgrades, and TruLink Customer Support Network connectivity. These features taken together make the Stellaris a truly twenty-first century phaco machine.
5.3.3.2Evaluating the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System
In order to assess the facility of use, safety and efficacy of the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System for bimanual micro incision cataract surgery, we undertook a prospective study of 30 unselected eyes of 26 patients presenting for cataract surgery with a single surgeon (MP) using the Advanced Flow System Vacuum Emulation (Table 5.6). Outcome measures included surgical time, Effective Phaco Time and Average Phaco Power, frequency of complications and uncorrected visual acuity at the first postoperative visit (either the same day or the next day).
The patient population was representative of our practice and included 13 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.2 ± 8.3 years. The mean nucleus grade was 1.4 + NS. Among the group of subjects there were four eyes with a history of LASIK, one eye with pseudoexfoliative glaucoma, eye with pigment dispersion syndrome, one eye with strabismic amblyopia, two eyes with epiretinal membrane.
The surgical technique employed our current standard methods. The evolution of these techniques for bimanual micro incision phaco may be reviewed in a variety of publications [1–4]. Briefly, two single-plane 1.2–1.4mm trapezoidal incisions are made with a diamond knife about 60° apart in the temporal clear cornea. Aqueous is exchanged for a dispersive viscoelastic and a continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis is constructed with pinch type forceps. Following hydrodissection and hydrodelineation the nucleus is impaled, chopped and mobilized utilizing one of a variety of 20 gauge irrigating choppers and a 30° beveled straight phaco needle.
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Packer et al. |
Table 5.6 Parameters for BMICS with the Stellaris advanced flow system vacuum emulation |
|
|
|||||
Phaco |
|
IA |
|
|
IA Viscoelastic |
Vit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
removal |
|
|
|
Chop |
Flip |
IA |
|
BI/COAX |
Hi speed |
Regular |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(pneum) |
Power (%) |
20 Linear |
20 linear |
|
|
|
Cut rate: |
Cut rate: |
|
(waveform |
|
|
|
|
1,500 cpm |
600 cpm |
|
not enabled) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mode |
30 pps |
Fixed burst |
|
|
|
(Yaw to turn |
|
|
|
duration: 10 ms |
|
|
|
cutter on/off) |
|
|
|
Interval: 30 ms |
|
|
|
|
|
Duty cycle (%) |
30 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Vac (yaw for max) |
125–325 |
250–325 |
500 Linear |
500 Fixed |
150 Linear |
150 Linear |
|
Flow |
NA |
30 Fixed |
NA |
|
30 |
30 Fixed |
25 Fixed |
Vacuum response |
2 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Bottle ht |
140 |
140 |
140 |
140/80 |
75 |
50 |
|
In programs |
Lin vac ACF |
Fixed flow |
Linear fac |
Linear flow |
|
|
|
|
|
linear vac |
|
|
fixed vac |
|
|
Dr. Packer, B & L Stellaris Bi-manual Advance Flow System-vac, October 3 2007 |
|
|
|||||
Choose: packer afm vac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vit – vitrectomy; Pps – pulses per second; Ht – high |
|
|
|
|
|
||
Epinucleus management permits simultaneous extrac- |
that the Stellaris Vision Enhancement System is safe |
||||||
tion of cortex in the great majority of cases. The capsule |
and effective for BMICS. |
|
|
||||
and anterior chamber are filled with a cohesive vis- |
|
|
|
|
|||
coelastic and limbal relaxing incisions are performed if |
|
|
|
|
|||
indicated for the correction of keratometric astigmatism |
5.3.3.3 The Advantages of BMICS |
|
|||||
[5]. LRIs are performed prior to intraocular lens (IOL) |
|
|
|
|
|||
insertion at 90% depth and the10mm optical zone, fol- |
Both coaxial and bimanual micro incision cataract sur- |
||||||
lowing the Nichamin nomogram. A single plane tempo- |
gery techniques allow equally rapid visual rehabilita- |
||||||
ral clear corneal incision is constructed and the posterior |
tion, with the vast majority of patients enjoying a clear |
||||||
chamber IOL is placed in the capsule, usually by means |
view by the time of the first post-op exam, whether that |
||||||
of an insertion device (shooter). The residual viscoelas- |
exam is conducted on the day of or the day after sur- |
||||||
tic is irrigated and aspirated from the eye. The corneal |
gery [6]. We prefer the bimanual technique primarily |
||||||
stroma is hydrated at each incision site and a Seidel test |
because of the enhanced surgical flexibility and control |
||||||
is performed to insure a watertight closure. |
|
made possible by separation of inflow and outflow. |
|||||
Of the 30 eyes in our study, 12 (40%) were implanted |
Separation of irrigation from the aspirating phaco |
||||||
with presbyopia correcting IOLs (5 ReZoom, 4 crystal- |
needle allows for improved followability by avoiding |
||||||
ens and 2 ReStor). Sixteen eyes (53%) were implanted |
competing currents at the tip of the needle. In some |
||||||
with cornea customized-aspheric IOLs (9 Tecnis, 4 |
instances, the irrigation flow from the second hand piece |
||||||
AcrySof IQ and 3 SofPort AO). Ten eyes (30%) had |
can be used as an adjunctive surgical device – flushing |
||||||
Limbal Relaxing Incisions. The mean surgery time |
nuclear pieces from the angle or loosening epinuclear or |
||||||
from start to end was 19.7 ± 5.5 min. The Mean |
cortical material from the capsular bag. In Refractive |
||||||
Effective Phaco Time measured 0.77 ± 1.58 s, and the |
Lens Exchange, the lens material may be washed com- |
||||||
Average Phaco Power was 2.04 ± 2.25%. There were |
pletely out of the bag and extracted with aspiration and |
||||||
no complications. |
|
|
|
vacuum only, so that no ultrasound is used and no instru- |
|||
At the first postoperative visit, the mean uncor- |
ment enters the endocapsular space, increasing the |
||||||
rected visual acuity measured 20/30 (excluding eyes |
safety profile of this demanding procedure. The flow of |
||||||
with preexisting pathology and prior surgery). 75% of |
fluid from the open end of an irrigator represents a very |
||||||
eyes read 20/40 or better, 63% 20/30 or better, 53% |
gentle instrument which can mobilize material without |
||||||
20/25 or better and 32% 20/20 or better. We concluded |
trauma to delicate intraocular structures. |
|
|||||
