Cargando…

A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Espíndola, Rodrigo F., Castro, Emerson F.S., Santhiago, Marcony R., Kara-Junior, Newton
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23018304
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2012(09)13
_version_ 1782242889350250496
author Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
author_facet Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
author_sort Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3438247
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34382472012-09-11 A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study Espíndola, Rodrigo F. Castro, Emerson F.S. Santhiago, Marcony R. Kara-Junior, Newton Clinics (Sao Paulo) Clinical Science OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2012-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3438247/ /pubmed/23018304 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2012(09)13 Text en Copyright © 2012 Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Science
Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_full A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_fullStr A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_full_unstemmed A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_short A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_sort clinical comparison between discovisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
topic Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23018304
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2012(09)13
work_keys_str_mv AT espindolarodrigof aclinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT castroemersonfs aclinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT santhiagomarconyr aclinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT karajuniornewton aclinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT espindolarodrigof clinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT castroemersonfs clinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT santhiagomarconyr clinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy
AT karajuniornewton clinicalcomparisonbetweendiscoviscand2hydroxypropylmethylcelluloseinphacoemulsificationafelloweyestudy