- •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
248 |
H. Kaymak and U. Mester |
Take Home Pearls
ßSeveral clinical studies and personal experience tell us that visual performance, particu-
larly with MIOLs, will be better after the surgery of the second eye.
ßThis means that the surgery of the fellow eye should not be postponed, despite the feeling,
after the surgery of the first eye, not being as outstanding as expected.
ßDysphotopsia (particularly halos) usually disappears by this time.
ßThe benefit of the MIOL can easily be demonstrated after the surgery, using a minus 3.0 D
glass simulating a monofocal situation. After removing the glass, the patient will appreciate the ability to read without spectacles.
ßSlight residual refractive errors (particularly in one eye) must not be corrected in each case:
Sometimes this residual error can be used to enhance the vision in intermediate distances.
ßThere should be no hesitation to perform YAGcapsulotomy even in cases with slight PCO.
ßDue to neural adaptation, a time period of up to 6 months is needed for the visual performance
to reach its maximum after MIOL implantation. That should be explained to the patient before and be repeated after the surgery.
ßArtificial tears are very helpful to improve visual function particularly in the early post-op
period.
5.Steinert R, Aker B, Trentacost D, et al A prospective comparative srudy of the AMO array zonal progressive multifocal silicone intraocular lens and a monofocal intraocular lens. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:1243–1255
6.Bellucci R, Scialdone A, Buralto L, et al Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity comparison between Tecnis and AcrySof SA60AT intraocular lenses: A multicenter randomized study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31:712–717
7.Kershner RM. Retinal image contrast and functional visual performance with aspheric, silicone, and acrylic intraocular lenses: Prospective evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:1684–1694
8.Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N. Impact of a modified optic
design on visual function: Clinical comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29:652–660
9.Mester U, Dillinger P, Anterist N, Kaymak H. Functional results with two multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOL). Array SA40 versus Acri.Twin. Ophthalmologe 2005; 102:1051–1056
10.Kaymak H, Mester U. Erste Ergebnisse mit einer neuen aberrationskorrigierenden Bifokallinse (*Acri.LISA), Ophthalmologe 2007; 104:1046–1051
11.Alió JL, Elkady B, Ortiz D, Bernabeu G. Clinical outcomes and intraocular optical quality of a diffractive multifocal
intraocular lens with asymmetrical light distribution. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34:942–948
12.Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Señaris A, Montés-Micó R. Prospective study of the Acri.LISA bifocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33:1930–1935
13.Mester U, Hunold W, Wesendahl T, Kaymak H. Functional outcomes after implantation of Tecnis ZM900 and Array SA40 multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33:1033–1040
14.Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Schwenn O, et al Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 1999; 106:1878–1886
15.Pieh S, Lackner B, Hanselmayer G, et al Halo size under distance and near conditions in refractive multifocal intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85:816–821
References
1.Leaming DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members – 2002 survey. J Cactaract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1412–1420
2.Dick HB, Tehrani M, Brauweiler P, et al Complications with foldable intraocular lenses with subsequent explantation in 1998 and 1999. Result of a questionaire evaluation. Ophthalmologe 2002; 99:438–444
3.Mamalis N, Davis B, Nilson CD, et al Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explantation or secondary intervention – 2003 survey update. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30:2209–2218
4.Auffarth G, Hunold W, Breitenbach S, et al Contrast and glare sensitivity in patient with multifocal IOLs: Results two years after lens implantation. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1993; 203:336–340