Comparison of conventional and torsional mode (OZil) phacoemulsification: Randomized prospective clinical study

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 984-989

  Bozkurt, Ercüment ^a   Bayraktar, Sukru ^a   Yazgan, Serpil ^a   Cakir, Mehmet ^a   Cekiç, Osman ^a   Erdogan, Havva ^a   Yilmaz, Omer F ^a  

^a Beyoglu Eye Training and Research Hospital   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Phacoemulsification; Torsional mode (OZil)

Indexed keywords

SODIUM CHLORIDE;

AGED; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CELL DENSITY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL PHACOEMULSIFICATION; CORNEA EDEMA; CORNEA ENDOTHELIUM; CORNEA LESION; CUMULATIVE DISSIPATED ENERGY; ENDOTHELIUM CELL; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; PHACOEMULSIFICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TORSIONAL PHACOEMULSIFICATION; TOTAL ULTRASOUND TIME; CELL COUNT; CELL SURVIVAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LENS IMPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TIME;

AGED; CATARACT; CELL COUNT; CELL SURVIVAL; ENDOTHELIUM, CORNEAL; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; LENS IMPLANTATION, INTRAOCULAR; PHACOEMULSIFICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 73949141218     PISSN: 11206721     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/112067210901900614     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sippel KC, Pineda R Jr. Phacoemulsification and thermal wound injury. Semin Ophthalmol 2002; 17: 102-9.
2. Ernest P, Rhem M, McDermott M, Lavery K, Sensoli A. Phacoemulsification conditions resulting in thermal wound injury. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 1829-39.
3. Roncin S. [Case report of a severe corneoscleral burn caused by the phacoemulsification probe.] J Fr Ophtalmol 2002; 25: 627-31.
4. Kaushik S, Ram J, Brar GS, Bandyopadhyay S. Comparison of the thermal effect on clear corneal incisions during phacoemulsification with different generation machines. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2004; 35: 364-70.
5. Bradley MJ, Olson RJ. A survey about phacoemulsification incision thermal contraction incidence and causal relationships. Am J Ophthalmol 2006; 141: 222-4.
6. Sugar A, Schertzer RM. Clinical course of phacoemulsification wound burns. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 688-92.
7. Baykara M, Ercan I, Ozçetin H. Microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) with pulse and burst modes. Eur J Ophtalmol 2006; 16: 804-8.
8. Vasavada AR, Raj SM, Lee YC. NeoSoniX ultrasound versus ultrasound alone for phacoemulsification: randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004; 30: 2332-5.
9. Pereira AC, Porfírio F Jr, Freitas LL, Belfort R Jr. Ultrasound energy and endothelial cell loss with stop-and-chop and nuclear preslice phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1661-6.
10. Davison JA, Cionni RJ, Snowdon JR, et al. Simultaneous surgeon and side-view video analysis comparing in situ fracture and stop-and-chop phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 274-9.
11. Wilczynski M, Drobniewski I, Synder A, Omulecki W. Evaluation of early corneal endothelial cell loss in bimanual microincision cataract surgery (MICS) in comparison with standard phacoemulsification. Eur J Ophthalmol 2006; 16: 798-803.
12. Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G, Giansanti F, Menchini U. Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: microincision versus standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 1351-4.
13. Tsorbatzoglou A, Kertész K, Módis L, Németh G, Máth J, Berta A. Corneal endothelial function after phacoemulsification using the fluid-based system compared to conventional ultrasound technique. Eye 2007; 21: 727-32.
14. Millá E, Vergés C, Ciprés M. Corneal endothelium evaluation after phacoemulsification with continuous anterior chamber infusion. Cornea 2005; 24: 278-82.
15. Sandoval HP, de Castro LE, Vroman DT, Solomon KD. Randomized, doublemasked clinical trial evaluating corneal endothelial cell loss after cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation: fluid-based system versus ultrasound phacoemulsification. Cornea 2006; 25: 1043-5.
16. Corvi A, Innocenti B, Mencucci R. Thermography used for analysis and comparison of different cataract surgery procedures based on phacoemulsification. Physiol Meas 2006; 27: 371-84.
17. Liu Y, Zeng M, Liu X, et al. Torsional mode versus conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification: randomized comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 287-92.
18. Rouhiainen P, Rouhiainen H, Notkola IL, Salonen JT. Comparison of the lens opacities classification system II and Lensmeter 701. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 116: 617-21.
19. Henderson B. Essentials of Cataract Surgery. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, 2007; 109.
20. Henderson B. Essentials of Cataract Surgery. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 2007: 297.
21. Fishkind W. Complications in Phacoemulsification: Avoidance, Recognition, and Management. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2002: 180.
22. Efron N, Mutalib HA, Perez-Gomez I, Koh HH. Confocal microscopic observations of the human cornea following overnight contact lens wear. Clin Exp Optom 2002; 85: 149-55.