J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2015 Dec;56(12):1860-1866. 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.12.1860.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between High and Low Fluid-Dynamic Parameters during Phacoemulsification

• Heo WJ
• Lee JY
• Kim HK

• KMID: 2148746
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.12.1860

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the clinical outcomes between high and low fluid-dynamic parameter settings during phacoemulsification.
METHODS
In this retrospective study we analyzed 183 consecutive eyes with senile cataracts that underwent cataract surgery between October 2010 and January 2015. The phacoemulsifications were performed with high and low fluidic parameter settings, which were designated by different fluid heights, aspiration flow rates, and vacuum settings. We measured and compared the intraoperative factors including fluid consumption, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), ultrasound time, intraoperative complications, and pupil size changes during the phacoemulsification. Central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell density (ECD), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were measured and compared preoperatively and postoperatively.
RESULTS
There was no statistically significant difference in the fluid consumption, CDE, or ultrasound time during phacoemulsification between the 2 groups. The frequencies of intraoperative complications were not statistically significant. UCVA, BCVA, and ECD were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups during the postoperative follow-up. The low parameter group showed the lower increase in CCT on postoperative day 30.
CONCLUSIONS
The phacoemulsifications with low fluid-dynamic parameter resulted in less damage to intraocular tissue without any significantly different postoperative findings. The phacoemulsification with low fluid-dynamic parameter setting is more advantageous due to stable and safe aspects.

Keyword

Cataract surgery; Fluid-dynamic parameters; Phacodynamics; Phacoemulsification

MeSH Terms

Cataract
Endothelial Cells
Follow-Up Studies
Intraoperative Complications
Phacoemulsification*
Pupil
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Vacuum
Visual Acuity

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Analysis of the the pupil size changes. The pupil size changes were analyzed with the ratio of the horizontal length of pupil (*) and the length between the limbus of cornea (arrows) using Image J program.

Reference

References

1. Kelman CD. Phaco-emulsification and aspiration. A new techni-que of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967; 64:23–35.

2. Allen D, Vasavada A. Cataract and surgery for cataract. BMJ. 2006; 333:128–32.

3. Zacharias J. Role of cavitation in the phacoemulsification process. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:846–52.

4. Hoffman RS, Fine IH, Packer M. New phacoemulsification technology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005; 16:38–43.

5. Jung CS, Myong YW, Woo HM. Penetrating keratoplasty for bul-lous keratopathy following cataract extraction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:2723–7.

6. Walkow T, Anders N, Klebe S. Endothelial cell loss after phacoe-mulsification: relation to preoperative and intraoperative parameters. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:727–32.

7. Vasavada AR, Raj S. Step-down technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1077–9.

8. Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS. Power modulations in new pha-coemulsification technology: improved outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:1014–9.

9. Ward MS, Georgescu D, Olson RJ. Effect of bottle height and aspi-ration rate on postocclusion surge in Infiniti and Millennium peri-staltic phacoemulsification machines. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:1400–2.

10. Oh TH, Lee SJ, Kim HS. Clinical outcomes of cataract surgery us-ing torsional mode phacoemulsification and soft shell technique. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1313–8.

11. Lee JE, Choi SH. Comparison of clinical results between Ellips and Ozil modes in phacoemulsification. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:1161–6.

12. Wong T, Hingorani M, Lee V. Phacoemulsification time and power requirements in phaco chop and divide and conquer nucleofractis techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:1374–8.

13. Verges C, Cazal J, Lavin C. Surgical strategies in patients with cat-aract and glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005; 16:44–52.

14. Adams W, Brinton J, Floyd M, Olson RJ. Phacodynamics: an aspi-ration flow vs vacuum comparison. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:320–2.

15. Cho KJ, Lee HS, Joo CK. The effectiveness and safety of the phaco prechopper technique before lens phacoemulsification in cataract surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1917–22.

16. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Risk factors for cor-neal endothelial injury during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:1079–84.

17. Faramarzi A, Javadi MA, Karimian F. . Corneal endothelial cell loss during phacoemulsification: bevel-up versus bevel-down phaco tip. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:1971–6.

18. Osher RH. Slow motion phacoemulsification approach. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:667.

19. Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Manabe S, Hirata A. Cataract surgery in eyes with low corneal endothelial cell density. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:1419–25.

20. Wong MM, Shukla AN, Munir WM. Correlation of corneal thick-ness and volume with intraoperative phacoemulsification parame-ters using Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:2067–75.

21. Baradaran-Rafii A, Rahmati-Kamel M, Eslani M. . Effect of hydrodynamic parameters on corneal endothelial cell loss after phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:732–7.

22. Vasavada AR, Praveen MR, Vasavada VA. . Impact of high and low aspiration parameters on postoperative outcomes of phacoe-mulsification: randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:588–93.