1 / 10

Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision.

The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this e-poster. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision. . Luis Izquierdo Jr MD. PhD . Maria Alejandra Henriquez MD. Amapola Rey Sanchez MD. .

ariadne
Télécharger la présentation

Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this e-poster Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision. Luis Izquierdo JrMD. PhD. Maria Alejandra HenriquezMD. Amapola Rey SanchezMD.

  2. To compare surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) after phacoemulsification trough clear cornea of 1.8 mm, 2.2 mm and 2.8 mm. Purpose

  3. This prospective, randomized and comparative study included 72 eyes of 72 patients that were divided into 3 groups according the size of the clear cornea incision (3.2 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm). • The intraocular lens (IOLs) implanted were Tecnis (ZA9003, AMO),Tecnis ( ZCBOO, AMO) and IQ (SN60WF de Alcon). • Pre and postoperative (1 months) uncorrected and bestcorrected visual acuity (UCVA, BCVA), spherical equivalent (SE) and topography was recorded and compared. • The SIA was calculated with a software, the statistically analysis was performed by Mann Whitney test. Methods

  4. There were statistically significant difference between the 3.2 and 2.8 mm group (p = 0.002) and the 3.2 versus the 2.2 mm group (p = 0.001). • The postoperative UCVA in the 3.2, 2.8 and 2.2 mm group were 0.10, 0.20, 0.30 logMAR respectively. • The postoperative SE for the 3.2, 2.8 and 2.2 mm were -0.13, -0.26, y -0.25 respectively (p > 0.05 for all the comparison groups). RESULTS

  5. 1.09 0.77 Diopters 0.39 Incision size

  6. Uncorrected visual acuity comparing the 3 groups Preoperative UCVA (LogMAR) Postoperative UCVA (LogMAR) LogMar There were statistically significant difference between the 3 groups (p= 0.003)

  7. Induced astigmatism comparing the 3 groups SIA:1.09 SIA:0.39 SIA:0.77

  8. The cataract surgery trough 2.2 mm clear cornea incision showed the best visual improvement and the smallest SIA. CONCLUSIONS

  9. Wang J, Zhang EK, Fan WY, Ma JX, Zhao PF. The effect of micro-incision and small-incision coaxial phaco-emulsification on corneal astigmatism. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2009 Sep;37(7):664-9. • Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Corneal shape changes after 2.0-mm or 3.0-mm clear corneal versus scleral tunnel incision cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2010 Jul;117(7):1313-23. Epub 2010 Apr 3. • Wilczynski M et al. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after coaxial phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm microincision and bimanual phacoemulsification through 1.7 mm microincision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Sep;35(9):1563-9. • Capella MJ, Barraquer E. Comparative study of coaxial microincision cataract surgery and standard phacoemulsification. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2010 Aug;85(8):268-73. Epub 2010 Nov 5. Spanis • Kocabora MS et al. Surgical outcome of coaxial phacoemulsification with torsional ultrasound after a 2.4 mm versus 3.2 mm clear corneal temporal incision. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2010;(315):25-30. • Lee KM, Kwon HG, Joo CK. Microcoaxial cataract surgery outcomes: comparison of 1.8 mm system and 2.2 mm system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 May;35(5):874-80 • Masket S, Wang L, Belani S. Induced astigmatism with 2.2- and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg. 2009 Jan;25(1):21-4. • Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Feb;35(2):233-9. • Tejedor J, Pérez-Rodríguez JA. Astigmatic change induced by 2.8-mm corneal incisions for cataract surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Mar;50(3):989-94. Epub 2008 Nov 14. • Morcillo-Laiz R, et al. Surgically induced astigmatism after biaxial phacoemulsification compared to coaxial phacoemulsification. Eye. 2009 Apr;23(4):835-9. REFERENCES

  10. Luis Izquierdo Jr. • OpthalmologyResidency, Escola Paulista de Medicina , Brasil. • Fellow in Cornea. UC Davis. CA. USA • Master in Ophthalmology. USMP. Lima Peru. • PhD in Medicine. USMP Lima Peru. • Professor of Oftalmology of Universidad de San Marco. Lima Peru. • Medical Director of OFTALMOSALUD Institute of eyes. Lima- Peru.

More Related