Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy

Kjell G Gundersen,1 Richard Potvin2 1iFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway; 2Science in Vision, Bend, OR, USACorrespondence: Kjell G GunderseniFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Sørhauggata 111, Haugesund 5527, NorwayTel +47 52808902Email kg@ifocus.noPurpose: To compare residual...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Gundersen KG, Potvin R
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2020
Materias:	precision pulse capsulotomy cataract surgery capsulorhexis capsulotomy Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b2296af1506a4fe5829e145c9ddb7335
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b2296af1506a4fe5829e145c9ddb7335
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b2296af1506a4fe5829e145c9ddb73352021-12-02T13:35:45ZClinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/b2296af1506a4fe5829e145c9ddb73352020-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/clinical-results-after-precision-pulse-capsulotomy-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Kjell G Gundersen,1 Richard Potvin2 1iFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway; 2Science in Vision, Bend, OR, USACorrespondence: Kjell G GunderseniFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Sørhauggata 111, Haugesund 5527, NorwayTel +47 52808902Email kg@ifocus.noPurpose: To compare residual refractive error and complication rates between eyes undergoing a manual capsulotomy and those receiving a precision pulse capsulotomy using an automated device.Patients and Methods: This study was a non-interventional two-arm retrospective chart review of clinical results after bilateral cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery with a monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) or a trifocal IOL where a manual capsulorhexis (Manual) or automated precision pulse capsulotomy (PPC) was performed.Results: Exams from 243 eyes (122 PPC, 121 Manual) from 124 patients were reviewed; about 75% of which had a trifocal IOL implanted. There was no statistically significant difference in the MRSE with either IOL type, or overall. The overall percentage of eyes with residual refractive cylinder ≤ 0.50 D was significantly higher in the PPC group (89% vs. 79% in the manual group, p = 0.03), primarily driven by results with the toric IOL. Best corrected distance visual acuity was not statistically significantly different by group. Capsulotomy-related complications were lower in the PPC group relative to the manual group (4.1% vs. 6.6%), but this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.38).Conclusion: Significantly more eyes had refractive cylinder ≤ 0.50 D in the PPC group. For all other measures, the automated PPC device produced clinical results equivalent to those achieved with a manual capsulorhexis.Keywords: precision pulse capsulotomy, cataract surgery, capsulorhexis, capsulotomyGundersen KGPotvin RDove Medical Pressarticleprecision pulse capsulotomycataract surgerycapsulorhexiscapsulotomyOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 14, Pp 4533-4540 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	precision pulse capsulotomy cataract surgery capsulorhexis capsulotomy Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	precision pulse capsulotomy cataract surgery capsulorhexis capsulotomy Ophthalmology RE1-994 Gundersen KG Potvin R Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
description	Kjell G Gundersen,1 Richard Potvin2 1iFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway; 2Science in Vision, Bend, OR, USACorrespondence: Kjell G GunderseniFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Sørhauggata 111, Haugesund 5527, NorwayTel +47 52808902Email kg@ifocus.noPurpose: To compare residual refractive error and complication rates between eyes undergoing a manual capsulotomy and those receiving a precision pulse capsulotomy using an automated device.Patients and Methods: This study was a non-interventional two-arm retrospective chart review of clinical results after bilateral cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery with a monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) or a trifocal IOL where a manual capsulorhexis (Manual) or automated precision pulse capsulotomy (PPC) was performed.Results: Exams from 243 eyes (122 PPC, 121 Manual) from 124 patients were reviewed; about 75% of which had a trifocal IOL implanted. There was no statistically significant difference in the MRSE with either IOL type, or overall. The overall percentage of eyes with residual refractive cylinder ≤ 0.50 D was significantly higher in the PPC group (89% vs. 79% in the manual group, p = 0.03), primarily driven by results with the toric IOL. Best corrected distance visual acuity was not statistically significantly different by group. Capsulotomy-related complications were lower in the PPC group relative to the manual group (4.1% vs. 6.6%), but this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.38).Conclusion: Significantly more eyes had refractive cylinder ≤ 0.50 D in the PPC group. For all other measures, the automated PPC device produced clinical results equivalent to those achieved with a manual capsulorhexis.Keywords: precision pulse capsulotomy, cataract surgery, capsulorhexis, capsulotomy
format	article
author	Gundersen KG Potvin R
author_facet	Gundersen KG Potvin R
author_sort	Gundersen KG
title	Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
title_short	Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
title_full	Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
title_fullStr	Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
title_full_unstemmed	Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy
title_sort	clinical results after precision pulse capsulotomy
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/b2296af1506a4fe5829e145c9ddb7335
work_keys_str_mv	AT gundersenkg clinicalresultsafterprecisionpulsecapsulotomy AT potvinr clinicalresultsafterprecisionpulsecapsulotomy
_version_	1718392694143713280

Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy

Ejemplares similares