Cargando…

Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study

PURPOSE: We assessed the effect of two lens cube sizes, three tip sizes, and two ultrasound (US) approaches on phacoemulsification efficiency and chatter. METHODS: After porcine lens nuclei were soaked in formalin, we divided them into cubes measuring 2.0 mm or 3.0 mm. We collected efficiency and ch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramshekar, Aniket, Heczko, Joshua, Bernhisel, Ashlie, Barlow, William, Zaugg, Brian, Olson, Randall, Pettey, Jeff
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34819719
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S333903
_version_ 1784602510274592768
author Ramshekar, Aniket
Heczko, Joshua
Bernhisel, Ashlie
Barlow, William
Zaugg, Brian
Olson, Randall
Pettey, Jeff
author_facet Ramshekar, Aniket
Heczko, Joshua
Bernhisel, Ashlie
Barlow, William
Zaugg, Brian
Olson, Randall
Pettey, Jeff
author_sort Ramshekar, Aniket
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We assessed the effect of two lens cube sizes, three tip sizes, and two ultrasound (US) approaches on phacoemulsification efficiency and chatter. METHODS: After porcine lens nuclei were soaked in formalin, we divided them into cubes measuring 2.0 mm or 3.0 mm. We collected efficiency and chatter data for 30-degree bent 19 G, 20 G, and 21 G tips with a continuous torsional US system; and for straight 19 G, 20 G, and 21 G tips with a micropulse longitudinal US system. RESULTS: The average time needed for removal was always higher for the 3.0 mm lens cube than for the 2.0 mm lens cube. Statistically significant differences were observed between the 19 G and 21 G tips with micropulse longitudinal US using a 2.0 mm cube and a 3.0 mm cube, and with continuous transversal US using a 2.0 mm lens cube and a 3.0 mm cube. We did not observe significant differences between 19 G and 20 G tips with either cube size in either US system. However, we noted identical trends for both cube sizes with both US approaches; 19 G tips performed better than 20 G and 21 G tips. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the lens size, 19 G needles were the most efficient, and had both the fewest outliers and the smallest standard deviations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8607188
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86071882021-11-23 Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study Ramshekar, Aniket Heczko, Joshua Bernhisel, Ashlie Barlow, William Zaugg, Brian Olson, Randall Pettey, Jeff Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: We assessed the effect of two lens cube sizes, three tip sizes, and two ultrasound (US) approaches on phacoemulsification efficiency and chatter. METHODS: After porcine lens nuclei were soaked in formalin, we divided them into cubes measuring 2.0 mm or 3.0 mm. We collected efficiency and chatter data for 30-degree bent 19 G, 20 G, and 21 G tips with a continuous torsional US system; and for straight 19 G, 20 G, and 21 G tips with a micropulse longitudinal US system. RESULTS: The average time needed for removal was always higher for the 3.0 mm lens cube than for the 2.0 mm lens cube. Statistically significant differences were observed between the 19 G and 21 G tips with micropulse longitudinal US using a 2.0 mm cube and a 3.0 mm cube, and with continuous transversal US using a 2.0 mm lens cube and a 3.0 mm cube. We did not observe significant differences between 19 G and 20 G tips with either cube size in either US system. However, we noted identical trends for both cube sizes with both US approaches; 19 G tips performed better than 20 G and 21 G tips. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the lens size, 19 G needles were the most efficient, and had both the fewest outliers and the smallest standard deviations. Dove 2021-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8607188/ /pubmed/34819719 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S333903 Text en © 2021 Ramshekar et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Ramshekar, Aniket
Heczko, Joshua
Bernhisel, Ashlie
Barlow, William
Zaugg, Brian
Olson, Randall
Pettey, Jeff
Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title_full Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title_fullStr Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title_short Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study
title_sort optimizing tip diameter in phacoemulsification of varying lens sizes: an in vitro study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34819719
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S333903
work_keys_str_mv AT ramshekaraniket optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT heczkojoshua optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT bernhiselashlie optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT barlowwilliam optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT zauggbrian optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT olsonrandall optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy
AT petteyjeff optimizingtipdiameterinphacoemulsificationofvaryinglenssizesaninvitrostudy