- •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
140 |
M. Packer et al. |
6.7Biaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery: Techniques and Sample Surgical Parameters
Mark Packer, I. Howard Fine,
and Richard S. Hoffman
Core Messages
ßEach step in cataract surgery builds on the preceding step.
ßThe clear corneal incision should be sized correctly for instrumentation.
ßThe capsulorhexis should be centered, round and slightly smaller than the optic of the
intraocular lens to be implanted.
ßEndo lenticular nucleofractis techniques protect both the capsule and the cornea.
ßSeparation of infusion and aspiration facilitates the removal of the lens material and has
advantages in difficult and complicated cases.
To begin the bimanual vertical chop technique for a moderate 2+ nuclear sclerotic cataract in a patient with asteroid hyalosis, a paracentesis type of incision is made to the left, constructed with a trapezoidal diamond blade. This incision measures 1.2 mm internally, which is precisely the size required for 20 gauge instrumentation such as the one used for bimanual microincision phacoemulsification. The anterior chamber is filled with a dispersive viscoelastic which remain in the eye during the high flow, high vacuum chop technique. The capsulorhexis is initiated centrally with a pinch and pulled with a counterclockwise motion.
The microincision forceps (MST, Redmond, WA) allow excellent control of the capsulorhexis and in addition, the small incisions also facilitate the control of the capsulorhexis because the viscoelastic does not exit the eye. This means that the chamber remains stable. Pressure in the anterior chamber on the anterior lens capsule helps to control the capsulorhexis. It is well
known that the loss of chamber stability will cause the capsulorhexis to run out towards the periphery. One of the advantages of microincision technique is that the chamber remains stable during the completion of the capsulorhexis. This allows better control of the size, the diameter, and the position of our capsulorhexis. Newer technology IOLs, which prevent posterior capsular opacification with a square edge or facilitate accommodation with axial movement, are dependent upon accurate sizing and position of the capsulorhexis. A capsulorhexis, which is smaller in diameter than the lens optic, such as 4mm in the case of a 4.5mm accommodative IOL or 5mm in the case of a standard 6mm multifocal or single vision lens, is needed.
Cortical cleaving hydrodissection is preformed by tenting up the anterior capsule and injecting the balanced salt solution under the rim of the capsule, and watching the fluid wave advance completely across the posterior capsule. The fluid wave is trapped temporarily between the lens and the posterior capsule, causing the lens to prolapse anteriorly. Repositioning the lens by pushing it posteriorly with the cannula in the center decompresses the fluid that is trapped, forcing it around the equator and lysing the corticocapsular connections. The lens is then rotated to make sure that it is free. Hydrodelineation can be carried out by embedding the tip of the cannula in the center of the lens and advancing it until the resistance of the endonucleus is encountered. A slight to and fro motion of the cannula will create a small space into which the balanced salt solution is injected. The fluid flows between the endonucleus and the epinucleus, forming the golden ring as seen in Fig. 6.55.
M. Packer ( )
Oregon Health & Science University, Drs. Fine, Hoffman and Packer, 1550 Oak Street, Suite 5, Eugene, OR 97401, USA e-mail: mpacker@finemind.com
Fig. 6.55 The 20 gauge phaco needle is embedded in the endonucleus as the irrigating chopper is prepared to incise and split the lens
6.7 Biaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery: Techniques and Sample Surgical Parameters |
141 |
The phaco needle is now embedded proximally with high vacuum and 40% power (Table 6.4). The vertical chopper, which will be used to split the nucleus into two, is held in the left hand. As vacuum builds to occlusion,theCASEsoftware(SovereignPhacoemulsification System; Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA) enables a rapid rise time and the endonucleus is firmly grasped on the phaco needle. At the point where the
occlusion is reached, the aspiration flow rate drops to zero. This is followed by the movement into foot position two so that a high vacuum is maintained and the power goes to zero (Fig. 6.55). The blade of the irrigating vertical chopper is brought down just distal to the phaco tip by slightly lifting up with the phaco needle. As a full thickness cleavage plane develops, which divides the nucleus into two, the surgeons separate
Table. 6.4 Dr.Packer AMO Sovereign “PACKER BIMANUAL WS ICE” Whitestar v6.1 Sov. ICE increased control efficiency
Phaco tip: gold straight 30 |
Incision: Asico or para 0.7–1.2 |
NEVER CRUISE. Extra pole extender |
|
|||||||||||
degree 20 ga. Cut-off yellow |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|||||
sleeve |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Start here, then to trim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memory |
|
Variable |
|
Chop |
Trim |
Flip |
|
IA |
Viscoat |
|||||
|
|
|
whitestar |
|
phaco mem |
phaco mem |
phaco Mem |
silicone |
removal |
|||||
|
|
|
mem 1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
curved tip |
silicone |
|||
|
|
|
(use for hard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curved |
||
|
|
|
cats) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tip |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power |
|
40 |
|
40 |
|
20 |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flow |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
22/16 |
|
24/16 |
22 |
40 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
Panel |
|
Panel |
Panel |
Panel |
Panel |
Linear |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacuum |
|
500\380 |
|
500\380 |
200/50 |
|
200/80 |
500 |
500 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
aCASE |
|
aCASE |
Linear |
Linear |
Linear |
Panel |
|||||
|
|
|
panel |
|
panel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramp (%) |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
|
30 |
85 |
85 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mode |
|
Variable |
|
Linear |
Linear |
Linear |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Unocclusion/ |
|
whitestar |
|
whitestar |
whitestar |
whitestar |
|
|
|
|
||||
occlusion |
|
CN/CL/CF/CD |
|
CL |
CL |
CL |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
18%/20/33/43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
ICE with 7% |
|
ICE with 7% |
Cont. irrig. |
Cont. irrig. |
Cont. irrig. |
Cont. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
power kick |
|
power kick |
|
|
|
|
|
irrig. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottle ht |
|
30 in. |
|
30 in. |
30 in. |
30 in. |
30 in. |
30 in. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Use “PACKER BI-MANUAL WS ICE” program |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Vitrectomy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
#1 Oscillating |
|
Flow 20 |
|
Vacuum 250 |
|
Cut rate 450 |
|
Bottle 20 |
|
|
|||
|
Use blue wrapped |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
#2 Guillotine; use |
|
Flow 20 |
|
Vacuum 250 |
|
Cut rate 400 |
|
Bottle 20 |
|
|
|||
|
disposable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICE increased control efficiency.
aCase – [replaces occlusion mode when selected] – (chamber stabilization environment)
Up threshold |
70% |
Down threshold |
50% |
Up time |
500 ms |
142 |
M. Packer et al. |
Fig. 6.56 The nucleus is divided to the right and the left. In this case, a posterior shelf has developed; it is particularly important to separate the instruments fully to insure a complete chop in this situation
Fig. 6.57 After the second chop has divided one of the heminuclei, the first quadrant is mobilized
their hands to insure a complete chop (Fig. 6.56). In this case, the heminucleus to the left is larger and is therefore addressed first.
The lens can then be rotated with the irrigating chopper so that the first heminucleus can be chopped and consumed. If there is a disparity in size, the larger half is moved distally. The phaco needle is now embedded to the right using high vacuum and low levels of power. A quadrant size piece is chopped off and consumed (Fig. 6.57). The remaining quadrant of the first heminucleus is then impaled with the phaco tip and aspirated (Fig. 6.58). Total Effective Phaco Time (EPT) to this point is less than half a second. EPT is a useful parameter for surgeons to follow. It can not be compared across different machines made by different manufactures, however, when using one machine, it can be compared from one case to another case as a sign of surgical efficiency. EPT is the amount of time for which ultrasound would have been turned on if it had been running on 100% continuous power. This means that about half a second has been used, out of the maximum ultrasound power that the machine can produce, to remove half the nucleus. Continuous power can produce thermal energy, but using WhiteStar Technology, or micropulsed phaco, avoids any risk of wound burn. Despite the tightness of the incisions, minimal incisional outflow is present and has a cooling effect around the phaco needle.
To address the second half of the nucleus, it is first rotated with the irrigating chopper so that it is in the distal capsule. The phaco needle is embedded in the smaller heminucleus and it is subdivided with the irrigating chopper, again using high vacuum and low levels of power (Fig. 6.59). As the final quadrant is grasped and pulled centrally for aspiration, the sharp
Fig. 6.58 The irrigating chopper is used to hold epinucleus |
|
back as another quadrant is aspirated |
Fig. 6.59 A segment of the second heminucleus is aspirated |
6.7 Biaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery: Techniques and Sample Surgical Parameters |
143 |
Fig. 6.60 As the final quadrant is aspirated, the chopper is turned sideways and the flow of the irrigation fluid is directed posteriorly to keep the posterior capsule at a safe distance
Fig. 6.62 The capsule is clean; asteroid hyalosis is visible in the vitreous cavity
blade of the irrigating chopper is turned sideways as a safety precaution (Fig. 6.60).
When addressing the epinucleus, the settings are reduced, the vacuum and flow rate are turned down and rim of the epinucleus is trimmed, disallowing the epinucleus from flipping into the phaco needle with the stream of irrigation fluid or the irrigating chopper itself. The advantage of the trimming procedure lies in the aspiration of cortical material from behind the epinuclear shell. In most cases this step eliminates the need for I/A prior to IOL insertion. Once three quadrants of the epinuclear shell have been rotated and trimmed, the final quadrant is used to flip the epinuclear bowl into the phaco needle (Fig. 6.61). Following aspiration of the epinucleus, the capsule is entirely free
of cortex (Fig. 6.62). The asteroid hyalosis in the vitreous cavity is obvious.
The incision for the lens is constructed with the differentially beveled 3D Blade (Rhein Medical, Tampa, FL) which reproducibly creates a 2.5mm incision at the shoulders. The relatively larger incision (approximately 2.5mm) which is constructed for IOL insertion seals quite well because it has been only minimally disturbed. Stromal hydration is performed at all the incisions and Seidel test is performed at the conclusion of the case. Careful attention to sealing clear corneal incisions may be critical for the prevention of post operative infection.
Bimanual phaco with a vertical chop technique allows efficient lens extraction with rapid visual rehabilitation. This case demonstrates some of the tangible benefits of separating inflow from outflow such as enhanced cortical cleaving hydrodissection, use of irrigation fluid as an instrument to mobilize material, and reduced EPT.
Fig. 6.61 The epinucleus is grasped with the phaco needle at reduced power, flow and vacuum and flipped
Take Home Pearls
ßReduction of ultrasound energy improves the rapidity of postoperative visual rehabilitation.
ßThe stream of irrigation fluid from the irrigating chopper can be used as a gentle instrument
in the eye to move material, keep the posterior capsule on stretch, and maintain the volume of the anterior chamber.
ßSpecific instrumentation for micro incision surgery has allowed the development of improved
surgical technique.
