Accepted Manuscript Comparison of two different ultrasound methods of phacoemulsification Firat Helvacioglu, MD Celal Yeter, MD Sadik Sencan, MD Zeki Tunc, MD O. Murat Uyar, MD, FEBO, FICO PII:
S0002-9394(14)00218-9
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.015
Reference:
AJOPHT 8892
To appear in:
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Received Date: 28 January 2014 Revised Date:
16 April 2014
Accepted Date: 17 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Helvacioglu F, Yeter C, Sencan S, Tunc Z, Uyar OM, Comparison of two different ultrasound methods of phacoemulsification, American Journal of Ophthalmology (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.015. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of microcoaxial phacoemulsification surgeries performed with the Ozil Intelligent Phaco torsional mode and combined torsional/longitudinal ultrasound mode using 45 degree aperture angled tips. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial
SC
RI PT
METHODS: Setting: Maltepe University, Istanbul. Patient Population: Eighty eyes of 80 cataract patients were randomly assigned to 2.2 mm microcoaxial phacoemulsification using the Ozil Intelligent Phaco torsional mode (Group 1) or combined torsional/longitudinal ultrasound mode (Group 2). Observation Procedure: Intraoperative fluid and energy usage and postoperative examinations were evaluated. Main outcome measures: Ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, longitudinal and torsional ultrasound amplitudes, mean operation time, mean volume of fluid used and surgical complications.
M AN U
RESULTS: Both groups included 40 eyes. Mean ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, longitudinal and torsional ultrasound amplitudes in Group 1 were 58.21 sec. ± 33.81 sec., 7.74 ± 6.23, 0.45 ±0.30, and 26.30 ± 12.60, respectively, and these parameters in Group 2 were 64.75 sec. ± 30.23 sec., 12.61 ± 6.21, 26.32 ±5.85, and 40.98 ± 8.33, respectively. Cumulative dissipated energy and longitudinal and torsional amplitudes were found to be significantly low in Group 1 (p=0.001, p
S0002-9394(14)00218-9
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.015
Reference:
AJOPHT 8892
To appear in:
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Received Date: 28 January 2014 Revised Date:
16 April 2014
Accepted Date: 17 April 2014
Please cite this article as: Helvacioglu F, Yeter C, Sencan S, Tunc Z, Uyar OM, Comparison of two different ultrasound methods of phacoemulsification, American Journal of Ophthalmology (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.04.015. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of microcoaxial phacoemulsification surgeries performed with the Ozil Intelligent Phaco torsional mode and combined torsional/longitudinal ultrasound mode using 45 degree aperture angled tips. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial
SC
RI PT
METHODS: Setting: Maltepe University, Istanbul. Patient Population: Eighty eyes of 80 cataract patients were randomly assigned to 2.2 mm microcoaxial phacoemulsification using the Ozil Intelligent Phaco torsional mode (Group 1) or combined torsional/longitudinal ultrasound mode (Group 2). Observation Procedure: Intraoperative fluid and energy usage and postoperative examinations were evaluated. Main outcome measures: Ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, longitudinal and torsional ultrasound amplitudes, mean operation time, mean volume of fluid used and surgical complications.
M AN U
RESULTS: Both groups included 40 eyes. Mean ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, longitudinal and torsional ultrasound amplitudes in Group 1 were 58.21 sec. ± 33.81 sec., 7.74 ± 6.23, 0.45 ±0.30, and 26.30 ± 12.60, respectively, and these parameters in Group 2 were 64.75 sec. ± 30.23 sec., 12.61 ± 6.21, 26.32 ±5.85, and 40.98 ± 8.33, respectively. Cumulative dissipated energy and longitudinal and torsional amplitudes were found to be significantly low in Group 1 (p=0.001, p
