4.3 Article

In vitro comparison of delivery performance of 4 preloaded intraocular lens injector systems for corneal and sclerocorneal incisions

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 840-846

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.050

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alcon Research, Ltd., Fort Worth, Texas, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare preloaded intraocular lens (IOL) injector systems in porcine eyes. Setting: Alcon Japan, Tokyo, Japan. Design: Experimental study. Methods: Freshly-excised porcine eyes were assigned to 11 study groups (10 eyes per group) consisting of UltraSert (system U: corneal incisions 2.2 mm and 2.4 mm), UltraSert long tip (system ULT: corneal incision 2.6 mm; sclerocomeal incisions 2.4 mm and 2.6 mm), iTec (system iT: corneal incisions 2.2 mm and 2.4 mm; sclerocorneal incisions 2.2 mm and 2.4 mm), and Vivinex iSert (system iS: corneal incision 2.0 mm; sclerocorneal incision 1.8 mm). Results: There were a few cases with IOL adherence to the plunger tip, delayed trailing haptic, intrawound manipulation, and damage to IOL, although the occurrence was not confined to particular devices. Cartridge tip splitting was observed with system iS. System U 2.4 mm and system ULT 2.6 mm caused the least amount of incision enlargement for corneal and sclerocorneal incisions, respectively. System ULT 2.6 mm resulted in the largest final size for comeal incisions and sclerocorneal incisions. System iS induced the largest amount of incision enlargement for both incisions but had significantly smaller final incision size than all other systems for corneal incisions and sclerocorneal incisions, except for system U 2.2 mm for corneal incisions. Conclusions: Intraocular lens implantation through a tighter incision and with cartridge-insertion technique (>wound-assisted technique) caused greater wound enlargement. A smaller preimplantation incision with a preloaded IOL delivery system did not necessarily result in significantly smaller final incision because of wound enlargement. (C) 2018 ASCRS and ESCRS

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据