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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |