J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2007 Dec;48(12):1649-1653.

Comparison of Phacoemulsification Time: Oscillation Device versus Conventional Device

• Kim M
• Lee SH
• Lee HY
• Chung SK

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the phacoemulsification time used in an adjunctive oscillation device and a conventional ultrasound phacomachine.
METHODS
Thirty eyes had phacoemulsification with a NeoSoniX(R) (Alcon Infiniti phacoemulsification system, Alcon, TX, U.S.A.) tip, and 30 eyes had phacoemulsification with a conventional ultrasound tip. Using the Scheimpflug camera (EAS-1000, Nidek, Japan), densities of the lens were measured in the eye of each patient in both groups preoperatively. The setting of parameters for phacoemulsification in both groups was identical. The power was 19% and the vacuum setting was 180 mmHg. A pulse rate of 40 pulses per second was used. For the cataract surgery with NeoSoniX(R), the setting of the oscillation angle was fixed to 100% (4 degrees). After cataract extraction, the phacoemulsification time was recorded.
RESULTS
The mean phacoemulsification time was 28.50+/-12.40 seconds in the NeoSoniX(R) group and 49.87+/-45.55 seconds in the conventional group. The reduced phacoemulsification time was statistically significant (p<0.05) in the NeoSoniX(R) group.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a statistically significant difference of phacoemulsification time between the NeoSoniX(R) and conventional phacoemulsification groups. Therefore, NeoSoniX(R) may contribute to a reduction in phacoemulsification time in all applications and can be an effective adjunctive device in a conventional phacomachine.

Keyword

NeoSoniX(R); Oscillation device; Phacoemulsification time

MeSH Terms

Cataract
Cataract Extraction
Heart Rate
Humans
Phacoemulsification*
Ultrasonography
Vacuum

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Schematic diagram of NeoSoniX® handpiece.

Reference

References

1. Kelman CD. Phacoemulsification and aspiration; a new technique of cataract removal; a preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967; 64:23–35.

2. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM. The Lens Opacities Classification System, Version III (LOCS III). Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111:831.

3. Davison JA. Performance comparison of the Alcon Legacy 20000 1.1mm TurboSonics and 0.9 mm Aspiration Bypass System tips. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:1386–91.

4. Davison JA. Performance comparison of the Alcon Legacy 20000 1.1mm TurboSonics and 0.9mm MicroTip. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:1382–5.

5. Davison JA. Performance comparison of the Alcon Legacy 20000 straight and flared 0.9mm aspiration bypass system tips. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:76–80.

6. McNeil JI. Flared phacoemulsification tips to decrease ultrasound time and energy in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1433–6.

7. 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.

8. Badoza D, Fernandez Mendy J, Ganly M. Phacoemulsification using the burst mode. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1101–5.

9. DeBry P, Olson RJ, Crandall AS. Comparison of energy required for phaco chop and divide and conquer phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:689–92.

10. Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS. New phacoemulsification technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1054–60.

11. Vargas LG, Holzer MP, Solomon KD. Endothelial cell integrity after phacoemulsification with 2 different handpieces. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:478–82.

12. Vasavada AR. Ultrasound versus ultrasound alone for phacoemulsification: randomized clinical trial. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:2333–4.

13. Davison JA. Ultrasonic power reduction during phacoemul-sification using adjunctive NeoSoniX technology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:1015–9.

14. Gil SY, Kang SB, Lee SH, Chung SK. The effect of phacoemulsification with oscillation device on the cornea and lens opacity. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1948–53.