- •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
168 |
I. H. Fine et. al. |
Fig. 7.11 Initial chop of the cataract post 100° ciliary body excision for malignant melanoma
Fig. 7.12 Epinucleus holding the iris back after carouselling the endonucleus in the presence of intraoperative floppy iris syndrome (IFIS)
In this case, it was possible to perform biaxial microincision phacoemulsification through two microincisions on each side of the 100° of atrophic sclera and conjunctiva, and missing ciliary body and iris. The advantage here was that with the vitreous face open to the anterior chamber, the material could be drawn toward the area of missing zonules, after sequestering the vitreous in that area with Healon 5 (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, California). Phacoemulsification performed through an incision in other locations would bring vitreous to the phaco tip and provide a much more challenging situation. The IOL was implanted nasally over the intact zonules to force the lens to push against the capsular fornix in the area of missing zonules, rather than to pull away from the area of missing zonules, if it had been implanted in the temporal periphery.
7.12Intraoperative Floppy Iris Syndrome (IFIS) (Figs. 7.12–7.16 )
Biaxial microincision phacoemulsification is found to be enormously useful in cases of intraoperative floppy iris syndrome (IFIS). If there is adequate dilation in the presence of a floppy iris, gentle cortical cleaving hydrodelineation and hydrodissection will be performed, and then the lens will be hydroexpressed into the plain of the iris. The endonucleus will then be
Fig. 7.13 Endonuclear disassembly in the anterior chamber with the irrigator tamponading the iris
carouselled in the plain of the capsulorhexis with the irrigating cannula held high in the anterior chamber. Holding the irrigator high in the anterior chamber allows for a tamponading of the iris by the fluid which then disallows floppiness, or billowing, of the iris. After removing the endonucleus in the plain of the capsulorhexis, a fully intact epinuclear shell is seen, which had been sitting on top of the iris, helping to hold it back. This is an extremely advantageous technique for nuclei of less hard densities that can be carouselled and phacoed in the anterior chamber without threatening the corneal endothelium.
7 Biaxial Microincision Phacoemulsification for Difficult and Challenging Cases |
169 |
For harder cataracts, and in the presence of pupils that will not dilate well, the pupil is dilated with Healon 5, and a rather large capsulorhexis is done followed by an endolenticular chop. The irrigating chopper high is kept in the anterior chamber and with the unsleeved phaco tip, nuclear material is brought up to the chopper held high in the anterior chamber for further disassembly. This allows, once again, a tamponading of the iris and prevention of billowing or floppiness. The phaco needle is kept occluded and in foot position two or three, but with a clearance of occlusion, foot position one is reached in order to minimize evacuation of Healon 5, which is holding the pupil open.
After removing the endonucleus in this way, the epinucleus is removed. Since it is harder to keep the tip occluded with epinuclear trimming and flipping, there tends to be evacuation of Healon 5 and a reduction of the size of the pupil, although because of the irrigator held high in the anterior chamber, it does not billow. Healon 5 is then re-instilled to expand the bag and redilate the pupil prior to cortical clean-up. Then, once again, holding the irrigator high in the anterior chamber, the aspirating microincision handpiece is kept occluded by going circumferentially around the capsulorhexis, with the port facing the capsule fornix, removing the cortical material from only the fornix of the capsule, letting it sit as a cluster in the central portion of the capsule. After all of the cortex has been mobilized from the capsular fornix, the residual cortex is removed from the eye. In this way, Healon 5 is kept in the eye and miosis of the pupil is disallowed until the case is complete.
In some cases, the pupil is intractably small and won’t respond to Healon 5 expansion. In these cases, a pupil expander ring (Morcher Pupil Expander Ring, Type 5S, FCI Ophthalmics, Marshfield Hills, MA; or a Malyugin Ring, Catalog #MAL-0001, MicroSurgical Technology, Redmond, WA) is used. These are implanted through a 2.5-mm clear corneal incision to enlarge the pupil (Fig. 7.14), after which biaxial phacoemulsification is performed through the two sideport incisions, and the larger incision remains sealed during the operation because of its self-sealing construction and architecture. The pupil expander rings are advantageous because the pupil can be moved away from the incisions just by pushing on the ring.
Fig. 7.14 A Morcher Pupil Expander Ring (Type 5S, FCI Ophthalmics, Marshfield Hills, MA) is injected through a 2.5- mm clear corneal incision
Fig. 7.15 The Morcher Pupil Expander Ring in place
With the ring in place (Fig. 7.15), it was found in some cases that it is not possible to adequately perform hydrodissection or hydrodelineation. When it is not possible to perform the hydrosteps because of the tendency of the pupil to extrude, a bevel-down phaco tip is used to bowl out the center of the cataract, and then an insideout hydrodelineation is done, as described by Abhay Vasavada [14]. The residual endonucleus is then chopped in the usual fashion, and then the epinucleus is removed.
In some cases, subincisional cortical removal may be performed by using a coaxial irrigation handpiece in the 2.5 mm incision to hold the iris back, while going to a distal location through a microincision with a 0.2- mm port aspirator to remove the subincisional cortex (Fig. 7.16). This has been very efficacious.
170 |
I. H. Fine et. al. |
Fig. 7.16 The use of a coaxial irrigation handpiece with a micro aspirator to remove subincisional cortex
Fig. 7.17 Preoperative image of an eye with a bound down pupillary membrane. Arrow indicates small, peripheral iridotomy
Fig. 7.18 Stretching the pupillary membrane in one direction and the iris just distal to the pupillary membrane in the opposite direction in the same meridian
Fig. 7.19 Stripping the pupillary membrane
7.13 Every Small Pupil Must Be Viewed
as a Potential IFIS
Every small pupil must be viewed as a potential floppy |
|
iris case because multiple drugs and neutraceuticals |
|
that have antialpha-1A properties which create an intra- |
|
operative floppy iris syndrome, have been identified . |
|
Small pupils are not stretched because if they become |
|
IFIS cases, the floppiness would get exacerbated by the |
|
disruption of the only portion of the iris (the pupil) |
|
which retains structural integrity. The only exceptions |
|
to that are the pupils that are bound down by inflamma- |
|
tory pupillary membranes, or that have a long history |
|
of exposure to miotic drops, and a clear absence of |
|
medications that might produce a floppy iris. |
Fig. 7.20 Releasing the last adhesion of the pupillary membrane |
|
7 Biaxial Microincision Phacoemulsification for Difficult and Challenging Cases |
171 |
Fig. 7.21 Preoperative slit-lamp and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images of a very shallow anterior chamber. The postoperative images demonstrate the increase in anterior chamber depth due to the 25 gauge transcleral pars plana vitrectomy
7.14 Iris Bombé (Figs. 7.17–7.20)
For pupils that are completely bound down by a pupillary membrane, biaxial phacoemulsification is used. It is commenced with a small iridotomy peripherally, close to one of the microincisions (Fig. 7.17). Viscoat® is used to elevate the iris and its cannula to sweep the pupillary membrane from the anterior lens capsule. The pupillary membrane is then stretched in one direction and the iris is stretched just distal to the pupillary membrane in the opposite direction in the same meridian (Fig. 7.18). This results in a lysing of the pupillary membrane for several clock hours from the pupil itself, and allows the surgeon to go back and, using tangential forces with a microincision capsulorhexis forceps, strip the pupillary membrane from the pupil (Figs. 7.19 and 7.20). Following this, Healon 5 allows for maximum dilation of the pupil and the process is proceeded with in the usual manner.
7.15Very Shallow Anterior Chambers
(Fig. 7.21)
For very shallow anterior chambers biaxial phacoemulsification is also a great advantage because the instruments are indeed smaller and fit more readily in the eye; however, if the anterior chambers are too shallow (Fig. 7.21), a 25-gauge transcleral pars plana
vitrectomy is performed, before proceeding with biaxial phacoemulsification. It is very important to use these microvitrectors in order to use a finger of the nondominant hand to maintain tactile contact with the eye, so that the eye is not over-softened. These vitrectors are capable of, between 1,200 and 1,500 cuts/min. In spite of their small gauge, unless care is taken, the eye could be excessively softened, retroplacing the lens and creating new difficulties and challenges.
7.16Refractive Lens Exchange
(Figs. 7.22–7.25)
Refractive lens exchange can be done very easily, and safely, with biaxial microincision phacoemulsification. Cortical cleaving hydrodissection is performed instead of hydrodelineation. The lens is then hydroexpressed into the plain of the capsulorhexis, and carouselled, without any phacoemulsification energy for soft lenses, usually encountered in refractive lens exchange (Figs. 7.22 and 7.23). An entirely fluidicbased extraction is done and then, because of cortical cleaving hydrodissection, the cortex is evacuated by just tilting the phaco tip back into the posterior chamber where it jumps into the phaco tip as a single piece (Figs. 7.24 and 7.25).
172 |
I. H. Fine et. al. |
Fig. 7.22 Carouselling the nucleus in refractive lens exchange Fig. 7.25 Cortex completely removed without using any phacoemulsification energy
Fig. 7.23 Endonucleus removal complete with only cortex remaining. No phacoemulsification energy was used to remove the endonucleus
7.17Refractive Lens Exchange in Post Radial Keratotomy
(RK) (Fig. 7.26)
In cases where previous radial keratotomy (RK) has been performed, biaxial microincision clear lens or cataract removal is done by going between two previously placed radials, making it much less likely that the radial incisions are ruptured during the course of the lens extraction. An incision is then made between two microincisions for implantation of the IOL, but in the presence of previous RK, it is made through the posterior limbus for the implantation of the IOL.
Fig. 7.24 Removing cortex in refractive lens exchange by tilting the phaco tip back into the posterior chamber
Fig. 7.26 Bimanual microincision phacoemulsification of a cataract between RK incisions
