Cargando…

Cumulative Dissipated Energy (CDE) in Three Phaco-Fragmentation Techniques for Dense Cataract Removal

PURPOSE: To determine the energy expenditure in phacoemulsification surgery expressed as cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) among the divide and conquer, ultrachopper-assisted divide and conquer, and phaco-chop techniques for dense cataract removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical data were obtai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernández-Muñoz, Erika, Chávez-Romero, Yolanda, Rivero-Gómez, Ricardo, Aridjis, Rebeca, Gonzalez-Salinas, Roberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10440113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37605764
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S407705
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To determine the energy expenditure in phacoemulsification surgery expressed as cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) among the divide and conquer, ultrachopper-assisted divide and conquer, and phaco-chop techniques for dense cataract removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical data were obtained from the medical charts of dense cataracts patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification employing any of three phaco-fragmentation techniques, including divide and conquer using the Kelman 0.9 mm tip, the ultrachopper tip, and the phaco-chop technique using the Kelman 0.9 mm tip. Cumulated dissipated energy (CDE), longitudinal ultrasound time (UST), and endothelial cell loss were compared among groups at the one-month postoperative. RESULTS: Surgeries from 90 eyes were analyzed, among whom the conventional divide-and-conquer technique group included 30 patients, 32 in the ultrachopper group, and 28 in the phaco-chop technique group. The average CDE in the conventional divide and conquer group was 44.52 ± 23.00, the ultrachopper technique was 43.27 ± 23.18, and 20.11 ± 11.06 in the phaco-chop group. Phaco-fragmentation chop demonstrated significantly lower CDE than the other techniques (p= <0.0001). The phaco-chop technique showed statistically significantly lower CDE when compared to the other two groups (p=<0.0001) with 93.96 ± 39.71 seconds. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative endothelial cell density between groups (p=0.4916). CONCLUSION: The use of the phaco-chop technique in hard cataract phacoemulsification represents a lower energy expenditure than divide and conquer and ultrachopper techniques; nevertheless, no differences regarding endothelial density loss were evidenced.