4.6 Article

Vitrectomy surgery increases oxygen exposure to the lens: A possible mechanism for nuclear cataract formation.

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 139, 期 2, 页码 302-310

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.09.046

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY04853] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To report vitreous oxygen tension before, immediately after, and at longer times after vitrectomy. DESIGN: A prospective, interventional consecutive case series. METHODS: Oxygen was measured using an optical oxygen sensor in patients undergoing vitrectomy. Intraoperatively, oxygen measurements were taken before and after vitrectomy in two intraocular locations: adjacent to the lens and in the mid-vitreous. RESULTS: Sixty-nine eyes underwent oxygen tension measurements at the time of vitrectomy. In baseline eyes, oxygen tension in the vitreous was low, measuring 8.7 +/- 0.6 mm Hg adjacent to the lens and 7.1 +/- 0.5 mm Hg in the mid,vitreous. The difference between the two locations was statistically significant (P <.003), indicating that vitreous gel maintains an intraocular oxygen gradient. Immediately after vitrectomy, oxygen tension in the fluid-filled eye was higher, measuring 69.6 +/- 4.8 mm Hg adjacent to the lens and 75.6 +/- 4.1 mm Hg in the mid,vitreous. There was no statistically significant oxygen gradient between the two locations. The difference in oxygen tension pre, and postvitrectomy is highly statistically significant (P <.0001 lens, P <.0001 mid-vitreous). In eyes with a history of vitrectomy and previous removal of the vitreous gel, the intraocular oxygen tension was significantly higher than in eyes with a formed vitreous gel undergoing a first vitrectomy (P <.02 lens, P <.003 mid-vitreous). CONCLUSION: Vitrectomy surgery significantly increases intraocular oxygen tension during and for prolonged periods after surgery. This exposes the crystalline lens to abnormally high oxygen and may lead to nuclear cataract formation.

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

4.6
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