Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Liquefaction versus Torsional IP: A Comparative Study on Endothelial Cells, Corneal Edema and Corneal Sensitivity

Labiris G.a · Gatzioufas Z.b · Giarmoukakis A.a · Sideroudi H.a · Kozobolis V.P.a

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece; bDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Clinics Saarland UKS, Homburg/Saar, Germany

Related Articles for ""

Ophthalmic Res 2013;49:37–42

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 23, 2012
Accepted: July 02, 2012
Published online: October 23, 2012
Issue release date: December 2012

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0030-3747 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0259 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ORE

Abstract

Background/Aims: To compare the impact of liquefaction and torsional IP cataract extraction methods on endothelial cell count (ECC), central corneal edema, and central corneal sensitivity (CCS) in a sample of cataract patients. Methods: The liquefaction (LG) and torsional IP (TG) group consisted of 47 and 48 grade 2 cataract eyes, respectively. Uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, ECC, central corneal thickness (CCT), and CCS were measured 1 day prior to surgery, 10 days, 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Results: Significant difficulties in the nucleus fragmentation were encountered in 2 LG eyes, and they were excluded from the study. Both techniques provided excellent refractive outcomes (LG, p < 0.001; TG, p = 0.02). Nonsignificant differences were detected in CCT values at the final postoperative examination; however, TG patients presented higher CCT on the first postoperative day (p = 0.04). Both groups presented comparable significant reductions in ECC (LG, p < 0.001; TG, p < 0.001) and CCS (LG, p = 0.02; TG, p = 0.02). Conclusion: Both methods provide excellent refractive outcomes, with comparable impact on ECC and CCS. Liquefaction seems to provide less corneal edema; however, difficulties in nucleus fragmentation may be encountered even in grade 2 cataracts.

© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Liu Y, Mingbing Z, Liu X, Luo L, Yuan Z, Xia Y, Zeng Y: Torsional mode versus conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification. Randomized comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:287–292.
  2. Hughes EH, Mellington FE, Whitefield LA: Aqualase for cataract extraction. Eye 2007;21:191–194.
  3. Desai P, Minassian D, Tuft S: Visual outcome following posterior capsule rupture during cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 1999;85:222–224.
  4. Fine IH, Packer M, Hoffman RS: New phacoemulsification technologies. J Cat Refract Surg 2002;28:1054–1060.
  5. Mackool RJ, Brint SF: Aqualase: a new technology for cataract extraction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:40–43.
    External Resources
  6. Hoffman RS, Fine IH, Packer M: New phacoemulsification technology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2005;16:38–43.
  7. Packer M, Fishkind WJ, Fine IH, Seibel BS, Hoffman RS: The physics of phaco: a review. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:424–431.
    External Resources
  8. Sitompul R, Sancoyo GS, Hutauruk JA, Gondhowiardjo TD: Sensitivity change in cornea and tear layer due to incision difference on cataract surgery with either manual small-incision cataract surgery or phacoemulsification. Cornea 2008;27(suppl 1): S13–S18.
    External Resources
  9. Ram J, Gupta A, Brar GS, Kaushik S, Gupta A: Outcomes of phacoemulsification in patients with dry eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1386–1389.
    External Resources
  10. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY: The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The longitudinal study of cataract study group. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:831–836.
  11. Ryu HW, Park SH, Joo CK: A comparison of the efficacy of cataract surgery using Aqualase with phacoemulsification using Microflow system. Korean J Ophthalmol 2007;21:137–141.
    External Resources
  12. Han YK, Miller KM: Heat production: longitudinal versus torsional phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1799–1705.
    External Resources
  13. Reuschel A, Bogatsch H, Barth T, Wiedemann R: Comparison of endothelial changes and power settings between torsional and longitudinal phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:1855–1861.
    External Resources
  14. Bozkurt E, Bayraktar S, Yazgan S, Cakir M, Cekic O, Erdogan H, Yilmaz OF: Comparison of conventional and torsional mode (OZil) phacoemulsification: randomized prospective clinical study. Eur J Ophthalmol 2009;19:984–990.
    External Resources
  15. Cionni RJ, Crandall AS, Felsted D: Length and frequency of intraoperative occlusive events with the new torsional phacoemulsification software. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1785–1790.
    External Resources
  16. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F: Risk factors for corneal endothelial injury during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:1079–1084.
  17. Storr-Paulsen A, Nørregaard JC, Farik G, Tårnhøj J: The influence of viscoelastic substances on the corneal endothelial cell population during cataract surgery: a prospective study of cohesive and dispersive viscoelastics. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:183–187.
    External Resources
  18. Poyales-Galan F, Pirazzoli G: Clinical evaluation of endothelial cell decrease with Visthesia in phacoemulsification surgery. J Cataract Surg 2005;31:2157–2161.
    External Resources
  19. Perone JM, Popovici A, Ouled-Moussa R, Herasymyuk O, Reynders S: Safety and efficacy of two ocular anesthetic methods for phacoemulsification: topical anesthesia and viscoanesthesia (Visthesia). Eur J Ophthalmol 2007;17:171–177.
  20. Moschos MM, Chatziralli P, Sergentanis TN: Viscoat versus Visthesia phacoemulsification cataract surgery: corneal and foveal changes. BMC Ophthalmol 2011;11:9.
    External Resources
  21. Nakano CT, Hida WT, Kara-Jose Junior N, et al: Comparison of central corneal edema and visual recovery between liquefaction and conventional phacoemulsification in soft cataracts. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2009;68:7–12.
    External Resources
  22. Belmonte C, Acosta MC, Gallar J: Neural basis of sensation in intact and injured corneas. Exp Eye Res 2004;78:513–525.
  23. Muller LJ, Vrensen GFJM, Pels L, Cardozo BN, Willekens B: Architecture of human corneal nerves. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:985–994.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: January 23, 2012
Accepted: July 02, 2012
Published online: October 23, 2012
Issue release date: December 2012

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0030-3747 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0259 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ORE


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.