Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models

Majid Moshirfar1, Charles M Calvo2, Krista I Kinard1, Lloyd B Williams1, Shameema Sikder3, Marcus C Neuffer11University of Utah, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Nevada, School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA; 3Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopki...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Moshirfar M, Calvo CM, Kinard KI, Williams LB, Sikder S, Neuffer MC
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:	Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6929d0e79b2446509a025683fe2b2006
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6929d0e79b2446509a025683fe2b2006
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6929d0e79b2446509a025683fe2b20062021-12-02T09:00:46ZComparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models1177-54671177-5483https://doaj.org/article/6929d0e79b2446509a025683fe2b20062011-08-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-hanna-and-hessburg-barron-trephine-and-punch-systems-usi-a8074https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5467https://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Majid Moshirfar1, Charles M Calvo2, Krista I Kinard1, Lloyd B Williams1, Shameema Sikder3, Marcus C Neuffer11University of Utah, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Nevada, School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA; 3Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USABackground: This study analyzes the characteristics of donor and recipient tissue preparation between the Hessburg-Barron and Hanna punch and trephine systems by using elliptical curve fitting models, light microscopy, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).Methods: Eight millimeter Hessburg-Barron and Hanna vacuum trephines and punches were used on six cadaver globes and six corneal-scleral rims, respectively. Eccentricity data were generated using measurements from photographs of the corneal buttons and were used to generate an elliptical curve fit to calculate properties of the corneal button. The trephination angle and punch angle were measured by digital protractor software from light microscopy and AS-OCT images to evaluate the consistency with which each device cuts the cornea.Results: The Hanna trephine showed a trend towards producing a more circular recipient button than the Barron trephine (ratio of major axis to minor axis), ie, 1.059 &plusmn; 0.041 versus 1.110 &plusmn; 0.027 (P = 0.147) and the Hanna punch showed a trend towards producing a more circular donor cut than the Barron punch, ie, 1.021 &plusmn; 0.022 versus 1.046 &plusmn; 0.039 (P = 0.445). The Hanna trephine was demonstrated to have a more consistent trephination angle than the Barron trephine when assessing light microscopy images, ie, &plusmn;14.39&deg; (95% confidence interval [CI] 111.9&ndash;157.7) versus &plusmn;19.38&deg; (95% CI 101.9&ndash;150.2, P = 0.492) and OCT images, ie, &plusmn; 8.08&deg; (95% CI 106.2&ndash;123.3) versus &plusmn; 11.16&deg; (95% CI 109.3&ndash;132.6, P = 0.306). The angle created by the Hanna punch had less variability than the Barron punch from both the light microscopy, ie, &plusmn;4.81&deg; (95% CI 101.6&ndash;113.9) versus &plusmn;11.28&deg; (95% CI 84.5&ndash;120.6, P = 0.295) and AS-OCT imaging, ie, &plusmn;9.96&deg; (95% CI 95.7&ndash;116.4) versus &plusmn;14.02&deg; (95% CI 91.8&ndash;123.7, P = 0.825). Statistical significance was not achieved.Conclusion: The Hanna trephine and punch may be more accurate and consistent in cutting corneal buttons than the Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch when evaluated using elliptical curve fitting models, light microscopy, and AS-OCT.Keywords: Hessburg-Barron, Hanna, trephine, corneal transplant, penetrating keratoplasty, corneal donor buttonMoshirfar MCalvo CMKinard KIWilliams LBSikder SNeuffer MCDove Medical PressarticleOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol 2011, Iss default, Pp 1121-1125 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	Ophthalmology RE1-994 Moshirfar M Calvo CM Kinard KI Williams LB Sikder S Neuffer MC Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
description	Majid Moshirfar1, Charles M Calvo2, Krista I Kinard1, Lloyd B Williams1, Shameema Sikder3, Marcus C Neuffer11University of Utah, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 2University of Nevada, School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA; 3Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USABackground: This study analyzes the characteristics of donor and recipient tissue preparation between the Hessburg-Barron and Hanna punch and trephine systems by using elliptical curve fitting models, light microscopy, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).Methods: Eight millimeter Hessburg-Barron and Hanna vacuum trephines and punches were used on six cadaver globes and six corneal-scleral rims, respectively. Eccentricity data were generated using measurements from photographs of the corneal buttons and were used to generate an elliptical curve fit to calculate properties of the corneal button. The trephination angle and punch angle were measured by digital protractor software from light microscopy and AS-OCT images to evaluate the consistency with which each device cuts the cornea.Results: The Hanna trephine showed a trend towards producing a more circular recipient button than the Barron trephine (ratio of major axis to minor axis), ie, 1.059 &plusmn; 0.041 versus 1.110 &plusmn; 0.027 (P = 0.147) and the Hanna punch showed a trend towards producing a more circular donor cut than the Barron punch, ie, 1.021 &plusmn; 0.022 versus 1.046 &plusmn; 0.039 (P = 0.445). The Hanna trephine was demonstrated to have a more consistent trephination angle than the Barron trephine when assessing light microscopy images, ie, &plusmn;14.39&deg; (95% confidence interval [CI] 111.9&ndash;157.7) versus &plusmn;19.38&deg; (95% CI 101.9&ndash;150.2, P = 0.492) and OCT images, ie, &plusmn; 8.08&deg; (95% CI 106.2&ndash;123.3) versus &plusmn; 11.16&deg; (95% CI 109.3&ndash;132.6, P = 0.306). The angle created by the Hanna punch had less variability than the Barron punch from both the light microscopy, ie, &plusmn;4.81&deg; (95% CI 101.6&ndash;113.9) versus &plusmn;11.28&deg; (95% CI 84.5&ndash;120.6, P = 0.295) and AS-OCT imaging, ie, &plusmn;9.96&deg; (95% CI 95.7&ndash;116.4) versus &plusmn;14.02&deg; (95% CI 91.8&ndash;123.7, P = 0.825). Statistical significance was not achieved.Conclusion: The Hanna trephine and punch may be more accurate and consistent in cutting corneal buttons than the Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch when evaluated using elliptical curve fitting models, light microscopy, and AS-OCT.Keywords: Hessburg-Barron, Hanna, trephine, corneal transplant, penetrating keratoplasty, corneal donor button
format	article
author	Moshirfar M Calvo CM Kinard KI Williams LB Sikder S Neuffer MC
author_facet	Moshirfar M Calvo CM Kinard KI Williams LB Sikder S Neuffer MC
author_sort	Moshirfar M
title	Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
title_short	Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
title_full	Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
title_fullStr	Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
title_sort	comparison of hanna and hessburg-barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/6929d0e79b2446509a025683fe2b2006
work_keys_str_mv	AT moshirfarm comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels AT calvocm comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels AT kinardki comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels AT williamslb comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels AT sikders comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels AT neuffermc comparisonofhannaandhessburgbarrontrephineandpunchsystemsusinghistologicalanteriorsegmentopticalcoherencetomographyandellipticalcurvefittingmodels
_version_	1718398248424570880

Comparison of Hanna and Hessburg-Barron trephine and punch systems using histological, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and elliptical curve fitting models

Ejemplares similares