- •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
6.1 Pupil Dilation and Preoperative Preparation |
107 |
Fig. 6.12 The operative eye is covered with an ophthalmic drape. This drape is fenestrated and has an attached fluid collection pouch (Allegiance #7445 48″ × 68″)
−The upper and the lower eyelashes should be covered with Tegaderm. One Tegaderm, cut it in half, should be used. (3M NDC 8333-1624-05)
−The operative eye should be draped with the ophthalmic drape which is fenestrated and has an attached fluid collection pouch (Allegiance #7445 48 × 68 in.)
6.Immediate postoperative drops
Gatifloxacin 0.3%, pilocarpine 2%, diclofenac, prednisolone acetate 1%, genteal gel
6.1.9 A Careful, Critical Eye
Asurgeon’sprimarychallengeinpreventingendophthalmitis consists of keeping a critical perspective on infection prophylaxis. Many reports are heard and multiple studies are seen, some of which contain relevant information and provide thoughtful insights. We should always evaluate the conclusions and opinions of others in the light of our own experience. The best way to build knowledge is to document outcomes; as human beings we are generally too much concerned with the results of our most recent or most unusual experiences. Documenting outcomes and tracking one’s own data allows an objective measure of risk as well as the potential to improve results by following up on alterations in protocol and technique, after they are made.
Take Home Pearls
ßExpanding the small pupil facilitates phacoemulsification; the techniques described
here should be used in a stepladder approach, tailored to the severity of the condition.
ßPreventing infection requires a multifactorial analysis of the present practices and an aggressive
adoption of the best methods.
References
1.Gimbel HV (1991) Divide and conquer nucleofractis phacoemulsification: development and variations. J Cataract Refract Surg 17:281–291
2.Shepherd JF (1990) In situ fracture. J Cataract Refract Surg 16:436–440
3.Fine IH, Maloney WF, Dillman DM (1993) Crack and flip phacoemulsification technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 19: 797–802
4.Fine IH (1998) The choo-choo chop and flip phacoemulsification technique. Oper Tech Cataract Refract Surg 1(2):61–65
5.Kelman CD (1979) Phacoemulsification in the anterior chamber. Ophthalmology 86:1980–1982
6.Kratz RP, Colvard DM (1979) Kelman phacoemulsification in the posterior chamber. Ophthalmology 86:1983–1984
7.Frye LL (1992) Pupil stretch maneuver. Course No. 454 (Modern Phaco/ECCE Implant Surgery: XII). American Academy of Ophthalmology, Dallas, TX
8.McReynolds WU (1976) Pupil dilator for phacoemulsification. In: Emery JM, Paton D (eds) Current concepts in cataract surgery, selected proceedings of the first biennial cataract surgery congress. CV Mosby, St. Louis
9.Mackool RJ (1992) Small pupil enlargement during cataract extraction: a new method. J Cataract Refract Surg 18(5): 523–526
10.Nichamin LD (1993) Enlarging the pupil for cataract extractions using flexible nylon iris retractors. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:795–796
11.Fishkind WA, Koch PS (1991) Managing the small pupil. In: Koch PS, Davison JA (eds) Textbook of advanced phacoemulsification techniques. Slack, Thorofare, NJ, pp 79–90
12.Drews RC (1984) Straight needle technique. In: Emery JM, Jacobson AC (eds) Current concepts in cataract surgery, selected proceedings of the eight biennial cataract surgical congress. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Norwalk, CT
13.Masket S (1992) Preplaced inferior iris suture method for small pupil phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 18(5):518–522
14.Fine IH (1994) Pupilloplasty for small pupil phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 20:192–196
15.Osher RH (1991) Pupillary membranectomy [Videotape]. Audiovisual J Cataract Implant Surg 7(3)
108 |
I. H. Fine et al. |
16.Chang DF (2007) Reducing the risk of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(12):2008–2009; author reply 2009
17.Chang DF, Braga-Mele R, Mamalis N, Masket S, Miller KM, Nichamin LD, Packard RB, Packer M (2007) ASCRS Cataract Clinical Committee. Prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: results of the 2007 ASCRS member survey. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(10): 1801–1805
18.Buzard K, Liapis S (2004) Prevention of endophthalmitis. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(9):1953–1959
19.Nichamin LD, Chang DF, Johnson SH, Mamalis N, Masket S, Packard RB, Rosenthal KJ (2006) American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Cataract Clinical Committee. ASCRS white paper: what is the association between clear corneal cataract incisions and postoperative endophthalmitis? J Cataract Refract Surg 32(9):1556–1559
20.Lundström M, Wejde G, Stenevi U, Thorburn W, Montan P (2007) Endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: a nationwide prospective study evaluating incidence in relation to incision type and location. Ophthalmology 114(5):866–870
21.Solomon R, Donnenfeld ED, Azar DT, Holland EJ, Palmon FR, Pflugfelder SC, Rubenstein JB (2003) Infectious keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis: results of an ASCRS survey. J Cataract Refract Surg 29(10): 2001–2006
22.Schein OD (2007) Prevention of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: making the most of the evidence. Ophthalmology 114(5):831–832
23.Fine IH (2003) Clear corneal cataract incisions require attention to detail. In: Packer M, Hoffman RS (eds) Cataract corner. Ophthalmology Times (15 January 2003) 28(2):12–13
24.Ciulla TA, Starr MB, Masket S (2002) Bacterial endophthalmitis prophylaxis for cataract surgery: an evidence-based update. Ophthalmology 109(1):13–24
25.Ng JQ, Morlet N, Bulsara MK, Semmens JB (2007) Reducing the risk for endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: population-based nested case-control study: endophthalmitis population study of Western Australia sixth report. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(2):269–280
26.Mandal K, Hildreth A, Farrow M, Allen D (2004) Investigation into postoperative endophthalmitis and lessons learned. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(9):1960–1965
27.MamalisN,EdelhauserHF,DawsonDG,ChewJ,LeBoyerRM, Werner L (2006) Toxic anterior segment syndrome. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(2):324–333
6.2 Incisions1
I. Howard Fine, Richard S. Hoffman,
and Mark Packer
Core Messages
ßClear corneal incisions have proven to be safe, effective, and advantageous, and require proper
and precise construction.
ßThe most desirable architecture is achieved through proper incision construction and the
use of trapezoidal knives;
ßPostoperative endophthalmitis prophylaxis requires not only proper incision construction
and architecture, but also the use of antibiotics, precise surgical technique, and the testing of incisions at the end of the procedure.
The role of unsutured clear corneal incisions for cataract surgery in the apparent increased incidence of postoperative endophthalmitis is under intense scrutiny and the literature is not conclusive [2–9].
Clear corneal incisions, which involve an incision in the plane of the cornea with a length equal to 2.0 mm, were first described in 1992 [10] and continue to be constructed in essentially the same manner in practice today. In 1992, the incisions were wide as 4.0 mm, but more recently the maximum width is 3.5–3.8 mm, if not sutured. Figure 6.13 shows an artist’s view of what the profile of clear corneal incisions was thought to look like. Part A shows the single plane incision and its
28.Hoffman RS, Fine IH, Packer M, Reynolds TP, Bebber CV apparent inherent lack of stability as one surface can
(2005) Surgical glove-associated diffuse lamellar keratitis. easily slide over another. Charles Williamson, from
Cornea 24(6):699–704
29.Lehmann OJ, Roberts CJ, Ikram K, Campbell MJ, McGill JI (1997) Association between nonadministration of subcon-
junctival cefuroxime and postoperative endophthalmitis. J Cataract Refract Surg 23(6):889–893
30.Lundström M (2006) Endophthalmitis and incision construction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 17(1):68–71
31.Masket S (2005) Is there a relationship between clear corneal cataract incisions and endophthalmitis? J Cataract Refract Surg 31:643–645
32.Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Packer M (2007) Profile of clear corneal cataract incisions demonstrated by ocular coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(1):94–97
Baton Rouge, innovated an alteration of the incision,
1Portions of this chapter were originally published as Fine et al. [1].
I. H. Fine ( )
Oregon Health & Science University, Drs. Fine, Hoffman and Packer, 1550 Oak Street, Suite 5, Eugene, OR 97401, USA
e-mail:hfine@finemd.com
