首页> 外文期刊>Journal of cataract and refractive surgery >Quantitative assessment of ophthalmic viscosurgical device retention using in vivo confocal microscopy.
【24h】

Quantitative assessment of ophthalmic viscosurgical device retention using in vivo confocal microscopy.

机译:使用体内共聚焦显微镜定量评估眼科内窥镜手术器械的保留。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To develop and apply a new laboratory method for in vivo quantitative assessment of the retention of ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) following phacoemulsification. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. METHODS: Studies of both eyes of New Zealand White rabbits were performed. Six OVDs were evaluated: Provisc and Healon (both sodium hyaluronate 1%), Healon5 (sodium hyaluronate 2.3%), Amvisc Plus (sodium hyaluronate 1.6%), Viscoat (sodium hyaluronate 3%-chondroitin sulfate 4%), and a new viscous-dispersive OVD, DisCoVisc (sodium hyaluronate 3%-chondroitin sulfate 4%). The OVD was injected to fill the anterior chamber and a phacoemulsification needle inserted with the tip positioned just anterior to the lens capsule. Simulated phacoemulsification was performed for 1 minute using flow rates of 20, 40, and 60 mL/min; a vacuum level of 300 mm Hg; and ultrasound power of 60% using a Legacy phacoemulsification unit. The needle was removed, and silicone oil (1000 centistokes) was injected into the anterior chamber. The distance between the corneal endothelium and the OVD-silicone oil interface was measured using in vivo confocal microscopy through-focusing (CMTF). RESULTS: Significant differences in residual thickness were found between the OVDs tested. Specifically, the residual thickness of both DisCoVisc (mean 324.5 microm +/- 163.7 [SD]) and Viscoat (251.4 +/- 100.9 microm) was significantly greater than that of Provisc (9.5 +/- 16.7 microm), Healon (3.8 +/- 11.3 microm), Healon5 (0.6 +/- 2.4 microm), and Amvisc Plus (65.6 +/- 134.0 microm) (P < .05, Dunn test). Ophthalmic viscosurgical device retention was greatest with DisCoVisc; however, there was no statistically significant difference between DisCoVisc and Viscoat in residual thickness. The flow rate did not have a significant effect on the residual thickness (Friedman 2-way analysis of variance by ranks). CONCLUSIONS: Residual OVD thickness following simulated phacoemulsification could be quantitatively measured using in vivo CMTF. The results are consistent with human surgical experience in that the dispersive OVD (Viscoat) was better retained than the cohesive compounds. DisCoVisc, a new viscous-dispersive OVD, also showed retention compared with Viscoat under the experimental conditions.
机译:目的:开发并应用一种新的实验室方法,对白内障超声乳化术后眼内窥镜手术器械(OVD)的保留量进行体内定量评估。地点:美国德克萨斯州达拉斯的德克萨斯大学西南医学中心眼科。方法:对新西兰白兔的两只眼睛进行了研究。对六个OVD进行了评估:Provisc和Healon(均为透明质酸钠1%),Healon5(透明质酸钠为2.3%),Amvisc Plus(透明质酸钠为1.6%),Viscoat(透明质酸钠3%-硫酸软骨素4%)和新的粘性-分散的OVD,DisCoVisc(透明质酸钠3%,硫酸软骨素4%)。注射OVD充满前房,并插入超声乳化针,其尖端位于晶状体囊的正前方。使用20、40和60 mL / min的流速进行1分钟的模拟超声乳化;真空度为300毫米汞柱;使用传统超声乳化仪的超声功率为60%。拔下针头,并将硅油(1000厘s)注入前房。使用体内共聚焦显微镜通过聚焦(CMTF)测量角膜内皮与OVD-硅油界面之间的距离。结果:在测试的OVD之间发现了剩余厚度的显着差异。具体来说,DisCoVisc(平均324.5微米+/- 163.7 [SD])和Viscoat(251.4 +/- 100.9微米)的残余厚度均明显大于Provisc(9.5 +/- 16.7微米),Healon(3.8 + -/-11.3微米),Healon5(0.6 +/- 2.4微米)和Amvisc Plus(65.6 +/- 134.0微米)(P <.05,Dunn测试)。 DisCoVisc的眼内窥镜手术装置保留最大。但是,DisCoVisc和Viscoat之间的残余厚度在统计学上没有显着差异。流速对残余厚度没有显着影响(Friedman 2级方差分析)。结论:模拟超声乳化后残留的OVD厚度可以使用体内CMTF进行定量测量。结果与人类手术经验一致,因为分散性OVD(Viscoat)比粘性化合物具有更好的保留性。在实验条件下,与Viscoat相比,DisCoVisc是一种新的粘性分散OVD,也显示出保留性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号