论文部分内容阅读
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Older generation phacoemulsification units are widel y employed where economics do not permit frequent upgrades. Thermal effects on t he cornea while performing phacoemulsification with different generation machine s were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The thermal effect on the clear corneal incision during uncomplicated phacoemulsification performed by the Series 10,000 (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) and the Diplomax (Allergan, Irvine, CA) ma chines was clinically evaluated and correlated with the effective phacoemulsific ation time required. The clinical outcome was analyzed with respect to wound clo sure and surgically induced corneal astigmatism. RESULTS: The average effective phacoemulsification time required to emulsify a grade IV cataract was 88.33 ±15 .81 seconds with the Series 10,000 machine and 61.67 ±21.79 seconds with the Di plomax machine. A grade 2 or more thermal effect was seen in 19.33%of patients operated on with the Series 10,000 machine and 3.22%of patients operated on wit h the Diplomax machine. The resultant tissue retraction affected wound closure a nd mean surgically induced corneal astigmatism (1.71 ±1.05 D with the Diplomax machine and 2.21 ±1.32 D with the Series 10,000 machine). CONCLUSIONS: Newer ge neration machines require less phacoemulsification power to emulsify hard catara cts, and the clinical outcomes are more favorable. Incision burns must be kept i n mind when working with older generation phacoemulsification machines.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Older generation phacoemulsification units are wide l y employed where economics do not permit frequent upgrades. Thermal effects on t he cornea while performing phacoemulsification with different generation machines were were evaluated. The PATIENTS AND METHODS: The thermal effect on the clear corneal incision during The uncomplicated phacoemulsification performed by the Series 10,000 (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX) and the Diplomax (Allergan, Irvine, CA) ma chines was clinically evaluated and correlated with the effective phacoemulsifiction time required. The clinical outcome was analyzed with respect to wound clo sure and surgically induced corneal astigmatism. RESULTS: The average effective phacoemulsification time required to emulsify a grade IV cataract was 88.33 ± 15 .81 seconds with the Series 10,000 machine and 61.67 ± 21.79 seconds with the Di plomax machine. A grade 2 or more thermal effect was seen in 19.33% of patients operated on with the Series 10,000 machine and 3.22% of patients operated on wit h the Diplomax machine. The resultant tissue retraction affected wound closure a nd mean surgically induced corneal astigmatism (1.71 ± 1.05 D with the Diplomax machine and 2.21 ± 1.32 D with the Series 10,000 machine). CONCLUSIONS : Newer ge neration machines require less phacoemulsification power to emulsify hard catara cts, and the clinical outcomes are more favorable. Incision burns must be kept in mind when working with older generation phacoemulsification machines.