Cargando…

FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE

To assess flow rates, nearfield effects, and traction of a dual-cutting 20,000 cpm vitrectomy probe (HYPERVIT, Alcon) versus a single-cutting 10,000 cpm probe (Advanced ULTRAVIT, Alcon). METHODS: Flow rates were evaluated for 25+ and 27+ gauge probes using balanced salt solution or porcine cadaver v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steel, David H., Charles, Martin, Zhu, Ying, Tambat, Sonalee, Irannejad, A. Mani, Charles, Steve
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Retina 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35868025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000003573
_version_ 1784813195800608768
author Steel, David H.
Charles, Martin
Zhu, Ying
Tambat, Sonalee
Irannejad, A. Mani
Charles, Steve
author_facet Steel, David H.
Charles, Martin
Zhu, Ying
Tambat, Sonalee
Irannejad, A. Mani
Charles, Steve
author_sort Steel, David H.
collection PubMed
description To assess flow rates, nearfield effects, and traction of a dual-cutting 20,000 cpm vitrectomy probe (HYPERVIT, Alcon) versus a single-cutting 10,000 cpm probe (Advanced ULTRAVIT, Alcon). METHODS: Flow rates were evaluated for 25+ and 27+ gauge probes using balanced salt solution or porcine cadaver vitreous (biased open, 50/50, and biased closed duty cycles). Probes were suspended in an open beaker, and flow rates were calculated using a precision balance. Nearfield effects and flow pulsatility were assessed using a validated simulation model based on experimental microparticle image velocimetry. Traction was assessed by attaching vitreous to a cantilever beam and measuring the deflection of the beam. RESULTS: For HYPERVIT probes, aqueous flow rates were similar across all cutting rates. Vitreous flow rates increased with increasing cutting rates. At maximum cutting rates, aqueous flow was 62%–67% greater (25+) and 63% greater (27+) with HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05); vitreous flow was 44%–47% greater (25+) and 26%–32% greater (27+) with HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05). Nearfield effects were reduced, and peak traction forces were significantly lower for HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Significantly greater aspiration flow, reduced nearfield effects, and reduced traction were observed with dual-action versus single-action probes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9584060
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Retina
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95840602022-10-27 FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE Steel, David H. Charles, Martin Zhu, Ying Tambat, Sonalee Irannejad, A. Mani Charles, Steve Retina Original Study To assess flow rates, nearfield effects, and traction of a dual-cutting 20,000 cpm vitrectomy probe (HYPERVIT, Alcon) versus a single-cutting 10,000 cpm probe (Advanced ULTRAVIT, Alcon). METHODS: Flow rates were evaluated for 25+ and 27+ gauge probes using balanced salt solution or porcine cadaver vitreous (biased open, 50/50, and biased closed duty cycles). Probes were suspended in an open beaker, and flow rates were calculated using a precision balance. Nearfield effects and flow pulsatility were assessed using a validated simulation model based on experimental microparticle image velocimetry. Traction was assessed by attaching vitreous to a cantilever beam and measuring the deflection of the beam. RESULTS: For HYPERVIT probes, aqueous flow rates were similar across all cutting rates. Vitreous flow rates increased with increasing cutting rates. At maximum cutting rates, aqueous flow was 62%–67% greater (25+) and 63% greater (27+) with HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05); vitreous flow was 44%–47% greater (25+) and 26%–32% greater (27+) with HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05). Nearfield effects were reduced, and peak traction forces were significantly lower for HYPERVIT versus Advanced ULTRAVIT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Significantly greater aspiration flow, reduced nearfield effects, and reduced traction were observed with dual-action versus single-action probes. Retina 2022-11 2022-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9584060/ /pubmed/35868025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000003573 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Opthalmic Communications Society, Inc. 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 Original Study
Steel, David H.
Charles, Martin
Zhu, Ying
Tambat, Sonalee
Irannejad, A. Mani
Charles, Steve
FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title_full FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title_fullStr FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title_full_unstemmed FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title_short FLUIDIC PERFORMANCE OF A DUAL-ACTION VITRECTOMY PROBE COMPARED WITH A SINGLE-ACTION PROBE
title_sort fluidic performance of a dual-action vitrectomy probe compared with a single-action probe
topic Original Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35868025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000003573
work_keys_str_mv AT steeldavidh fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe
AT charlesmartin fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe
AT zhuying fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe
AT tambatsonalee fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe
AT irannejadamani fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe
AT charlessteve fluidicperformanceofadualactionvitrectomyprobecomparedwithasingleactionprobe