Journals / MN Oftalmoloji / 2008 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of “stop and chop” and “phaco quick chop” techniques for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts

Sert nükleuslu kataraktlarda fakoemülsifikasyon yöntemi olarak “stop and chop” ve “phaco quick chop” tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
225–229
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Even though “Stop and Chop” technique and “Phaco Quick Chop” techniques both appear to be suitable and successful methods for cataract cases with hard nucleus, we suggest that “Phaco Quick Chop” technique should be preferred because it is a safer technique for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To compare and to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of two different techniques that we performed in phacoemulsification surgery of hard cataract cases.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: This prospective study contains 68 eyes of 68 patients chosen randomly into 2 groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Even though “Stop and Chop” technique and “Phaco Quick Chop” techniques both appear to be suitable and successful methods for cataract cases with hard nucleus, we suggest that “Phaco Quick Chop” technique should be preferred because it is a safer technique for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karşılaştırmalı çalışma · Katarakt · Fakoemülsifikasyon

Abstract

Aim: To compare and to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of two different techniques that we performed in phacoemulsification surgery of hard cataract cases. Material and Method: This prospective study contains 68 eyes of 68 patients chosen randomly into 2 groups. All the eyes had brunescent cataract or mature cataract with hard nucleus grade IV-V. In group A “Stop and Chop” and in group B Phaco Quick Chop” techniques were performed by using standard methods. 34 eyes of 34 patients (65.1±8.1 years) in group A and 34 eyes of 34 patients (67±9.1 years) in group B were included into this study. Results: In the first day best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly lower in group A than in group B. In the first week and in the third month BCVA was still higher in group B but it was not statistically significant. Intraoperative complications were 2 posterior capsule rupture, 1 zonular dehiscence and 1 nucleus drop and 2 thermal wound injury in group A and only 1 zonular dehiscence in group B. The in the bag IOL implantation was achieved in 91% of eyes in group A and 97% of eyes in group B. The mean effective phaco time was 42±25 seconds in group A and 8.8±6.4 seconds in group B, this difference was statistically very significant in favor of group B. Postoperative corneal edema was observed in 10 eyes in Group B while in 4 in Group B. Conclusion: Even though “Stop and Chop” technique and “Phaco Quick Chop” techniques both appear to be suitable and successful methods for cataract cases with hard nucleus, we suggest that “Phaco Quick Chop” technique should be preferred because it is a safer technique for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts.

Özet

Amaç: Sert kataraktlarda uyguladığımız 2 farklı fakoemülsifikasyon tekniğinin etkinliğini ve güvenilirliğini karşılaştırmak. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu prospektif çalışma rastgele ikiye ayrılmış 68 hastanın 68 gözünü içermektedir. Bütün gözlerde kahverengi nükleer katarakt veya evre IV-V sert nükleusu olan matür katarakt mevcuttu. A grubunda “Stop and Chop” ve B grubunda “Phaco Quick Chop” teknikleri standart tarzda uygulandı. A grubundaki 34 hastanın (65,1±8,1 yıl) 34 gözü ve B grubundaki 34 hastanın (67±9,1 yıl) 34 gözü çalışmaya dahil edildi. Bulgular: A grubunda ilk günkü en iyi görme keskinliği (EİGK) B grubuna göre anlamlı şekilde daha azdı. İlk hafta ve üçüncü ayda EİGK B grubunda hala daha fazlaydı ama istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktu. A grubunda ameliyat içi komplikasyon olarak 2 arka kapsül yırtığı, 1 zonül diyalizi, 1 nükleus düşmesi ve 2 termal yara yeri yanığı, B grubunda 1 tane zonül diyalizi görüldü. A grubunda kapsül içine implantasyon %91 oranında gerçekleşirken B grubunda bu oran %97 olarak bulundu. Etkili fako zamanı A grubunda ortalama 42± 25 saniye iken B grubunda 8,8±6,4 saniye olduğu görüldü ve bu fark B grubu lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı. Ameliyat sonrası geçici kornea ödemi A grubunda 10 gözde B grubunda ise 4 gözde görüldü. Sonuç: ’’Stop and chop’’ ve ‘’Phaco Quick Chop’’ ikisi de sert nükleuslu katarakt vakaları için uygulanabilir ve başarılı tekniklerdir. Fakat minimal ultrasonik stres ve daha az nükleus parçası-kornea endotel temasına sahip ‘’Phaco Quick Chop’’ un tercih edilmesi gereken bir teknik olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KOCABORA, M. S., GÖÇMEZ, E., TAŞKAPILI, M., GÜLKIRIK, G., ÖZBİLEN, K. T. (2008). Comparison of “stop and chop” and “phaco quick chop” techniques for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts. MN Oftalmoloji, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 225–229. https://ajindex.com/articles/296775

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS. New phacoemulsification technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1054-60 2.Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS. Use of power modulations in phacoemulsification: choo-choo chop and flip phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:188-97 3.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 4.DeBry P, Olson RJ, Crandall AS. Comparison of energy required for phaco-chop and divide and conquer phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:689-92 5.Pirazzoli G, D'Eliseo D, Ziosi M, Acciarri R. Effects of phaco emulsification time on the corneal endothelium using pha- cofracture and phaco chop techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:967-9 6.Garcia AS, Limoa AM, Sampaio AM, llharco JF. Chop and re-chop. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998 24:147-8 7.L.D. Nichamin, Phaco quick-chop, Cataract Refract Surg Today 2 (2002), pp. 42-3. 8.Koch PS, Katzen LE. Stop and chop phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20: 566-70 9.Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Risk factors for corneal endothelial injury during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:1079-84 10. Gimbel HV. Divide and conquer nucleofractis phacoemulsification: development and variations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991;17:281-291. 11.Koch PS. Mastering Phacoemulsification, 4th ed. Thorofare, NJ, Slack, İne, 1994;99-103. 12.Vajpayee RB, Kumar A, Dada T, et al. Phaco-chop versus stop-and-ehop nucleotomy for phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:1638-41 13.Can I, Takmaz T, Cakici F, Özgül M. Comparison of Nagahara phaco-chop and stop-and-ehop phacoemulsification nucleotomy techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30: 663- 8.