Comparison of Clinical Results between Ellips and Ozil Modes in Phacoemulsification

Jong Eun Lee; Si Hwan Choi

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.10.1161

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(10) > 1008897

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee and Choi: Comparison of Clinical Results between Ellips and Ozil Modes in Phacoemulsification

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(10):1161-1166.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.10.1161

Comparison of Clinical Results between Ellips and Ozil Modes in Phacoemulsification

Jong Eun Lee, MD¹, Si Hwan Choi, MD^1,²

¹Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea

²Chungnam National University Research Institute for Medical Sciences, Daejeon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Si Hwan Choi, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University Hospital #282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon 301-721, Korea Tel: 82-42-280-7604, Fax: 82-42-255-3745, E-mail: shchoi@cnu.ac.kr

Received 17 August 2010 Accepted 30 July 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes following phacoemulsification in Ellips (Signature^®) and Ozil (Infiniti^®) modes.

Methods

Phacoemulsification was performed using Ellips and Ozil modes in 30 eyes each. The phacoemulsification parameters such as the maximum phaco power, vacuum power, and aspiration rates were consistent between the two modes. Nuclear sclerosis grade, average phaco power, and the total phaco energy were recorded. The best-corrected visual acuity, central corneal thickness, and endothelial cell counts were measured preoperatively and on postoperative day 1 and on week 1, 2, 4, and 8.

Results

The average phaco power and total phaco energy were significantly lower in patients with nuclear sclerosis grades 1 and 2 in the Ellips group compared with those in the Ozil group (p < 0.05). However, when these parameters were measured in patients with nuclear sclerosis grades 3 and 4, the difference was not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). Two months postoperatively, the changes in central corneal thickness were 8.73 ± 17.62 and 5.19 ± 14.42 µm in the Ellips and Ozil groups, and the changes in endothelial cell count were 100.4 ± 196.5 and 145.7 ± 323.8 cells/mm² (p > 0.05), respectively. The differences did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Although the ultrasound energy used in the surgical procedure was significantly lower in the Ellips group compared with that in the Ozil group, especially in patients with nuclear sclerosis grades 1 and 2, there were no significant differences in the best-corrected visual acuity, central corneal thickness, and endothelial cell count between the 2 groups. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(10):1161–1166

Keywords: Central corneal thickness, Corneal endothelium, Ellips, Ozil, Transversal phacoemulsification

References

1. Liu Y, Zeng M, Liu X, et al. Torsional mode versus conventional ultrasound mode phacoemulsification: randomized comparative clinical study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:287–92.

2. Schmutz JS, Olson RJ. Thermal comparison of Infiniti OZil and Signature Ellips phacoemulsification systems. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010; 149:762–7.

3. West SK, Rosenthal F, Newland HS, Taylor HR. Use of photographic techniques to grade nuclear cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1988; 29:73–7.

4. Vargas LG, Holzer MP, Solomon KD, et al. Endothelial cell integrity after phacoemulsification with 2 different handpieces. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:478–82.

5. O'Brien PD, Fitzpatrick P, Kilmartin DJ, Beatty S. Risk factors for endothelial cell loss after phacoemulsification surgery by a junior resident. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:839–43.

6. Polack FM, Sugar A. The phacoemulsification procedure Ⅲ corneal complications. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977; 16:39–46.

7. Gwin RM, Warren JK, Samuelson DA, Gum GG. Effects of phacoemulsification and extracapsular lens removal on corneal thickness and endothelial cell density in the dog. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983; 24:227–36.

8. Walkow T, Anders N, Klebe S. Endothelial cell loss after phacoemulsification: relation to preoperative and intraoperative parameters. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:727–32.

9. Bourne RR, Minassian DC, Dart JK, et al. Effect of cataract surgery on the corneal endothelium: modern phacoemulsification compared with extracapsular cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:679–85.

10. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Risk factors for corneal endothelial injury during phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996; 22:1079–84.

11. Koch DD, Liu JF, Glasser DB, et al. A comparison of corneal endothelial changes after use of Healon or Viscoat during phacoemulsification. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993; 115:188–201.

12. Kosrirukvongs P, Slade SG, Berkeley RG. Corneal endothelial changes after divide and conquer versus chip and flip phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:1006–12.

13. Gil SY, Kang SB, Lee SH, Chung SK. The effect of phacoemulsification with oscillation device on the cornea and lens opcatiy. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1948–53.

Table 1.

Patients demographics

	Ellips mode (n = 30)	Ozil mode (n = 30)	p-value^*
Average patient age (mean ± SD, yr)	66.8 ± 13.6	64.9 ± 9.6	0.534
Nucleus density (mean ± SD)	1.96 ± 1.0	1.93 ± 0.87	0.891
Individual number according the NSG^†			
NSG 1	11	10	
NSG 2	13	14	
NSG 3	2	4	
NSG 4	4	2	

^* Student t-test, p < 0.05

^† NSG = nuclear sclerosis grade.

Table 2.

Comparisons of preoperative conditions (mean ± SD)

	Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
BCVA^†	0.44 ± 0.26	0.41 ± 0.23	0.612
Corneal curvature (D)	43.6 ± 1.2	43.5 ± 1.2	0.849
Corneal thickness (µm)	539.9 ± 47.3	533.2 ± 29.1	0.513
Endothelial cell count (cells/mm²)	2620.8 ± 306.2	2575.1 ± 344.3	0.589

^* Student t-test, p < 0.05

^† BCVA = best-corrected visual acuity, log MAR.

Table 3.

Changes of the central corneal thickness (Postop – Preop, mean ± SD, µm)

	Changes of the central corneal thickness
	Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
Postop 1 day	47.7 ± 43.4	42.9 ± 13.6	0.591
Postop 1 week	37.2 ± 28.0	38.7 ± 19.7	0.826
Postop 2 weeks	37.4 ± 25.6	32.3 ± 24.9	0.456
Postop 1 month	20.2 ± 19.8	18.6 ± 18.6	0.755
Postop 2 months	8.7 ± 17.6	5.1 ± 14.4	0.587

^* Student t-test, p < 0.05.

Table 4.

Changes of the endothelial cell count (Preop-Postop, mean ± SD, cells/mm²)

	Changes of the endothelial cell count
	Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
Postop 1 day	28.9 ± 187.2	32.5 ± 217.1	0.956
Postop 1 week	58.8 ± 142.5	76.0 ± 171.8	0.731
Postop 2 weeks	86.5 ± 210.5	78.7 ± 209.6	0.907
Postop 1 month	99.7 ± 227.0	106.7 ± 157.8	0.911
Postop 2 months	100.4 ± 196.5	145.7 ± 323.8	0.748

^* Student t-test, p < 0.05.

Table 5.

Comparisons of endothelial cell hexagonality (mean ± SD, %)

	Comparisons of endothelial cell hexagonality
	Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
Postop 1 day	60.7 ± 12.1	56.4 ± 12.4	0.279
Postop 1 week	59.4 ± 14.4	54.2 ± 11.2	0.156
Postop 2 weeks	52.0 ± 15.0	55.2 ± 12.1	0.403
Postop 1 month	53.9 ± 10.8	58.8 ± 10.5	0.100
Postop 2 months	55.8 ± 12.8	57.9 ± 11.8	0.535

^* Student t-test, p < 0.05.

Table 6.

Comparisons of endothelial cell coefficient of variation (mean ± SD)

	Comparisons of endothelial cell coefficient of variation
	Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
Postop 1 day	0.36 ± 0.11	0.34 ± 0.06	0.348
Postop 1 week	0.35 ± 0.09	0.33 ± 0.05	0.351
Postop 2 weeks	0.36 ± 0.08	0.35 ± 0.07	0.539
Postop 1 month	0.33 ± 0.09	0.31 ± 0.06	0.209
Postop 2 months	0.32 ± 0.07	0.32 ± 0.06	0.817

^* Student's t-test, p < 0.05.

Table 7.

Comparisons of total phaco energy and average phaco power according to grades of nuclear sclerosis (mean ± SD)

		Ellips mode	Ozil mode	p-value^*
Total phaco energy (sec)	NSG^† 1	3.2 ± 2.2	7.9 ± 3.1	0.001
	NSG 2	6.9 ± 2.6	15.7 ± 5.0	0.000
	NSG 3	16.4 ± 8.1	20.4 ± 6.8	0.556
	NSG 4	21.5 ± 10.3	39.2 ± 6.1	0.133
Average phaco power (%)	NSG 1	14.4 ± 5.9	26.4 ± 8.1	0.000
	NSG 2	21.3 ± 8.3	40.6 ± 8.2	0.000
	NSG 3	29.4 ± 11.5	44.5 ± 9.7	0.286
	NSG 4	34.5 ± 14.8	51.4 ± 4.1	0.267

^* Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05

^† NSG = nuclear sclerosis grade.

TOOLS

Similar articles