Cargando…

Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery

This study was done to compare the results of posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis created using forceps with those created using vitrector in eyes suffering from congenital cataract. Vitrectorhexis term was first used by Wilson et al in 1999.[1] Fifty eyes with congenital and developmenta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kochgaway, Lav, Biswas, Partha, Paul, Ajoy, Sinha, Sourav, Biswas, Rupak, Maity, Puspen, Banerjee, Sumita
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23571249
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.101066
_version_ 1782477210418937856
author Kochgaway, Lav
Biswas, Partha
Paul, Ajoy
Sinha, Sourav
Biswas, Rupak
Maity, Puspen
Banerjee, Sumita
author_facet Kochgaway, Lav
Biswas, Partha
Paul, Ajoy
Sinha, Sourav
Biswas, Rupak
Maity, Puspen
Banerjee, Sumita
author_sort Kochgaway, Lav
collection PubMed
description This study was done to compare the results of posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis created using forceps with those created using vitrector in eyes suffering from congenital cataract. Vitrectorhexis term was first used by Wilson et al in 1999.[1] Fifty eyes with congenital and developmental cataract were included in this study. The posterior capsulorhexis was created using utrata forceps in 17 eyes or through a vitrector in 33 eyes. Forceps capsulorhexis was performed before IOL implantation, while vitrectorhexis was performed after IOL implantation in the bag. The results of both the surgery were compared using the following criteria: incidence of extension of rhexis, ability to achieve posterior rhexis of appropriate size, ability to implant the IOL in the bag, the surgical time, and learning curve. Vitrectorhexis after IOL implantation was an easy to learn alternative to manual posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery. It was more predictable and reproducible, with a short learning curve and lesser surgical time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3759112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37591122013-09-09 Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery Kochgaway, Lav Biswas, Partha Paul, Ajoy Sinha, Sourav Biswas, Rupak Maity, Puspen Banerjee, Sumita Indian J Ophthalmol Brief Communication This study was done to compare the results of posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis created using forceps with those created using vitrector in eyes suffering from congenital cataract. Vitrectorhexis term was first used by Wilson et al in 1999.[1] Fifty eyes with congenital and developmental cataract were included in this study. The posterior capsulorhexis was created using utrata forceps in 17 eyes or through a vitrector in 33 eyes. Forceps capsulorhexis was performed before IOL implantation, while vitrectorhexis was performed after IOL implantation in the bag. The results of both the surgery were compared using the following criteria: incidence of extension of rhexis, ability to achieve posterior rhexis of appropriate size, ability to implant the IOL in the bag, the surgical time, and learning curve. Vitrectorhexis after IOL implantation was an easy to learn alternative to manual posterior continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery. It was more predictable and reproducible, with a short learning curve and lesser surgical time. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3759112/ /pubmed/23571249 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.101066 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Communication
Kochgaway, Lav
Biswas, Partha
Paul, Ajoy
Sinha, Sourav
Biswas, Rupak
Maity, Puspen
Banerjee, Sumita
Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title_full Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title_fullStr Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title_full_unstemmed Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title_short Vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
title_sort vitrectorhexis versus forceps posterior capsulorhexis in pediatric cataract surgery
topic Brief Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23571249
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.101066
work_keys_str_mv AT kochgawaylav vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT biswaspartha vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT paulajoy vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT sinhasourav vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT biswasrupak vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT maitypuspen vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery
AT banerjeesumita vitrectorhexisversusforcepsposteriorcapsulorhexisinpediatriccataractsurgery