Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2018 / Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2

Comparison of “Nagahara Phaco-Chop” and “Stop-And-Chop Phacoemulsification Techniques”

Fakoemülsifikasyon Cerrahisinde “Nagahara Phaco-Chop” ve “Stop-And-Chop” Tekniklerinin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
81–84
Publication Date
2018-07-02
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)

On the other hand, stop-and-chop technique is more associated with endothelial damage, and more ultrasonic energy is used for it; however, for many surgeons, it is easier to perform.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: This study aims to evaluate the differences and the results between “Nagahara phaco chop” and “stop-and-chop” phacoemulsification techniques.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: 49 eyes of 47 patients were performed “Nagahara phaco-chop” technique, and 39 eyes of 38 patients were performed “Stop-and-chop” technique.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, stop-and-chop technique is more associated with endothelial damage, and more ultrasonic energy is used for it; however, for many surgeons, it is easier to perform.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:fakoemülsifikasyon · fako-chop · phaco-chop

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the differences and the results between “Nagahara phaco chop” and “stop-and-chop” phacoemulsification techniques. Patients and Methods: 49 eyes of 47 patients were performed “Nagahara phaco-chop” technique, and 39 eyes of 38 patients were performed “Stop-and-chop” technique. Results: Mean phaco time and the effective phacoemulsification time in the phaco-chop technique were statistically significantly lower than those in the stop and chop method. The ratio of the transient stromal oedema was significantly higher in stop-and-chop technique than phaco-chop technique. Time to achieve maximum vision after the operation was 5.67±5.59 days in phaco-chop group, and 9.39 ±8.20 days in stop-and-chop group. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of best corrected visual acuity level at the last visit Conclusion: Phaco-chop method decreases the duration of phacoemulsification and reduces released energy and accelerate post operative healing. However, phaco-chop technique s a more difficult technique, and has a longer learning period. On the other hand, stop-and-chop technique is more associated with endothelial damage, and more ultrasonic energy is used for it; however, for many surgeons, it is easier to perform.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma “Nagahara phaco-chop” ve “stop-and-chop” fakoemülsifikasyon teknikleri arasındaki sonuçları ve farklılıkları araştırmak amacıyla yapıldı. Hastalar ve yöntem: Nagahara’nın fako-chop yöntemi ile opere edilen 47 hastanın 49 gözü stop-and-chop yöntemi uygulanan 38 hastanın 39 gözü çalışma kapsamına alındı. Bulgular: Phaco-chop tekniği uygulanan grupta ortalama fako süresi ve ortalama etkili fako süresi stop and chop yöntemi uygulanan gruba göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede düşük bulundu. Stop-and-chop tekniği uygulanan grupta geçici stromal ödem oranı (%25.6) phaco-chop tekniği uygulanan gruba göre (%8.2) anlamlı derecede yüksekti. Phaco-chop tekniği uygulanan grupta en iyi düzeltilmiş görme keskinliğine ulaşma zamanı (5.67±5.59 gün) stop-and-chop tekniği uygulanan gruba göre (9.39±8.20 gün) anlamlı derecede kısalmıştı. Her iki grup arasında son kontrolde elde edilen düzeltilmiş en iyi görme seviyesi açısından anlamlı fark bulunmadı. Sonuç: Phaco-chop yöntemi fakoemülsifkasyon süresini ve enerjisini azaltır, postoperatif iyileşme sürecini hızlandırabilir fakat phaco-chop tekniği daha zordur, öğrenme süresi daha uzundur. Stop-and-chop tekniği daha çok endotel hücre kaybıyla ilişkilidir. Stop-and-chop tekniğinde daha çok ultrasonik enerji kullanılır fakat birçok fako cerrahı için uygulanması daha kolaydır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOSLAK, D., BOZKURT, S., ACAR, S. (2018). Comparison of “Nagahara Phaco-Chop” and “Stop-And-Chop Phacoemulsification Techniques”. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 81–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/920428

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Lam D, Rao SK, Ratra V, Liu Y, Mitchell P, King J, et al. Cataract. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2015;1:15014. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2015.14
  2. Saito K, Miyake K, McNeiL PL, Kato K, Yago K, Sugai N. Plasma Membrane Disruption Underlies Injury of the Corneal Endothelium by Ultrasound. Exp Eye Res 1999;68:431–7. doi:10.1006/exer.1998.0626
  3. Krey HF. Ultrasonic turbulences at the phacoemulsification tip. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989;15:343–4
  4. Pirazzoli G, D’Eliseo D, Ziosi M, Acciarri R. Effects of phacoemulsification time on the corneal endothelium using phacofracture and phaco chop techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:967–9.[ 5. Pascal W Hasler, Essential principles of phacoemulsification. JP Medical Ltd, Feb 28, 2013 6. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:831. doi:10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035
  5. Uthoff D, Holland D, Herbst T, Foerster J, Rüfer F, Pölzl M. Rock “n” roll phacoemulsification technique: Noncracking and nonchopping approach. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:1636–9. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.08.042
  6. Koch PS, Katzen LE. Stop and chop phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20:566–70
  7. Can İ, Takmaz T, Çakici F, Özgül M. Comparison of Nagahara phaco-chop and stop-and-chop phacoemulsification nucleotomy techniques. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:663–8. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.06.006
  8. Vajpayee RB, Kumar A, Dada T, Titiyal JS, Sharma N, Dada VK. Phaco-chop versus stop-and-chop nucleotomy for phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:1638–41.