Cargando…

Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study

PURPOSE: To compare 1 new intraocular lens (IOL) injector system against 3 standard injector systems in porcine eyes. SETTING: David J Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. DESIGN: In vitro laboratory study. METHODS: In 70...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Lu, Schickhardt, Sonja, Fang, Hui, Auerbach, Florian, Cagampang, Perfecto, Merz, Patrick R., Auffarth, Gerd U.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34224477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000736
_version_ 1784651689537568768
author Zhang, Lu
Schickhardt, Sonja
Fang, Hui
Auerbach, Florian
Cagampang, Perfecto
Merz, Patrick R.
Auffarth, Gerd U.
author_facet Zhang, Lu
Schickhardt, Sonja
Fang, Hui
Auerbach, Florian
Cagampang, Perfecto
Merz, Patrick R.
Auffarth, Gerd U.
author_sort Zhang, Lu
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare 1 new intraocular lens (IOL) injector system against 3 standard injector systems in porcine eyes. SETTING: David J Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. DESIGN: In vitro laboratory study. METHODS: In 70 porcine eyes, +20.0 diopter IOLs were implanted with the following systems: multiSert, UltraSert, iTec, and RayOne, that is, S1.8 (incision size: 1.8 mm), S2.0 (2.0 mm), S2.2P (2.2 mm, push mode), S2.2S (2.2 mm, screw mode), U2.2 (2.2 mm), iT2.2 (2.2 mm), and R2.0 (2.0 mm). Corneal incision sizes were measured before and after implantation with an incision gauge set. Ease of use was evaluated using a Likert scale. IOL delivery time and performance were determined based on Miyake-Apple view videos. RESULTS: Of the 70 eyes studied, the incision enlargements were 0.36 ± 0.08 mm (S1.8), 0.15 ± 0.07 mm (S2.0), 0.17 ± 0.12 mm (S2.2P), 0.28 ± 0.10 mm (S2.2S), 0.32 ± 0.09 mm (U2.2), 0.30 ± 0.08 mm (iT2.2), and 0.35 ± 0.11 mm (R2.0). Total scores of ease of use were 23.00 (S1.8), 25.00 (S2.0), 29.00 (S2.2P), 26.00 (S2.2S), 26.00 (U2.2), 25.00 (iT2.2), and 24.00 (R2.0). As for the mean delivery time, iT2.2 took the longest time (13.20 ± 3.29 seconds), whereas S2.2S took the shortest time (4.50 ± 0.71 seconds). Optic–haptic adhesion was observed in S1.8 (4, 40%), S2.2P (2, 20%), U2.2 (5, 50%), and iT2.2 (5, 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Injector S, with the appropriate incision size and implantation method, could achieve better results regarding incision enlargement, ease of use, delivery time, and performance than other injector systems. There was an indirect relationship between incision size and inadvertent events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8845526
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88455262022-02-24 Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study Zhang, Lu Schickhardt, Sonja Fang, Hui Auerbach, Florian Cagampang, Perfecto Merz, Patrick R. Auffarth, Gerd U. J Cataract Refract Surg Laboratory Science PURPOSE: To compare 1 new intraocular lens (IOL) injector system against 3 standard injector systems in porcine eyes. SETTING: David J Apple Center for Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. DESIGN: In vitro laboratory study. METHODS: In 70 porcine eyes, +20.0 diopter IOLs were implanted with the following systems: multiSert, UltraSert, iTec, and RayOne, that is, S1.8 (incision size: 1.8 mm), S2.0 (2.0 mm), S2.2P (2.2 mm, push mode), S2.2S (2.2 mm, screw mode), U2.2 (2.2 mm), iT2.2 (2.2 mm), and R2.0 (2.0 mm). Corneal incision sizes were measured before and after implantation with an incision gauge set. Ease of use was evaluated using a Likert scale. IOL delivery time and performance were determined based on Miyake-Apple view videos. RESULTS: Of the 70 eyes studied, the incision enlargements were 0.36 ± 0.08 mm (S1.8), 0.15 ± 0.07 mm (S2.0), 0.17 ± 0.12 mm (S2.2P), 0.28 ± 0.10 mm (S2.2S), 0.32 ± 0.09 mm (U2.2), 0.30 ± 0.08 mm (iT2.2), and 0.35 ± 0.11 mm (R2.0). Total scores of ease of use were 23.00 (S1.8), 25.00 (S2.0), 29.00 (S2.2P), 26.00 (S2.2S), 26.00 (U2.2), 25.00 (iT2.2), and 24.00 (R2.0). As for the mean delivery time, iT2.2 took the longest time (13.20 ± 3.29 seconds), whereas S2.2S took the shortest time (4.50 ± 0.71 seconds). Optic–haptic adhesion was observed in S1.8 (4, 40%), S2.2P (2, 20%), U2.2 (5, 50%), and iT2.2 (5, 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Injector S, with the appropriate incision size and implantation method, could achieve better results regarding incision enlargement, ease of use, delivery time, and performance than other injector systems. There was an indirect relationship between incision size and inadvertent events. Wolters Kluwer 2022-02-01 2021-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8845526/ /pubmed/34224477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000736 Text en Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Laboratory Science
Zhang, Lu
Schickhardt, Sonja
Fang, Hui
Auerbach, Florian
Cagampang, Perfecto
Merz, Patrick R.
Auffarth, Gerd U.
Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title_full Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title_fullStr Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title_short Comparison of a new IOL injector system against 3 standard IOL injector systems with different incision sizes: Miyake-Apple view experimental laboratory study
title_sort comparison of a new iol injector system against 3 standard iol injector systems with different incision sizes: miyake-apple view experimental laboratory study
topic Laboratory Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34224477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000736
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanglu comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT schickhardtsonja comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT fanghui comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT auerbachflorian comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT cagampangperfecto comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT merzpatrickr comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy
AT auffarthgerdu comparisonofanewiolinjectorsystemagainst3standardiolinjectorsystemswithdifferentincisionsizesmiyakeappleviewexperimentallaboratorystudy