...
首页> 外文期刊>Cornea >Endothelial damage with two DSAEK insertion techniques performed by a novice corneal surgeon in residency training: A comparative analysis
【24h】

Endothelial damage with two DSAEK insertion techniques performed by a novice corneal surgeon in residency training: A comparative analysis

机译:新手角膜外科医生在住院医师培训中采用两种DSAEK插入技术对内皮损伤的比较分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

PURPOSE:: The aim was to determine which of 2 commonly used nonfold donor insertion techniques was advantageous for initial Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) cases. METHODS:: This involved an ex vivo, prospective comparative case series of 20 randomized DSAEK lenticule insertions. DSAEK insertions were performed by a single novice corneal surgeon (PGY4 resident) in human cadaver eyes. Ten grafts were inserted using a Sheet glide (Surgical Glide; Beaver-Visitec International Inc, Waltham, MA) and 10 were inserted using an inserter device (EndoSerter; Ocular Systems Inc, Winston-Salem, NC). The grafts were explanted, stained with trypan blue and alizarin red S, and photographed for comparison with 5 control grafts. Endothelial damage was quantitatively evaluated using Adobe Photoshop 10.0 CS3 software (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA). RESULTS:: Endothelial cell loss (ECL) was 7.10% ± 2.27% in controls, 12.31% ± 4.74% in the inserter group, and 13.31% ± 5.46% in the Sheet glide group (P = 0.07). Early cases (cases 1-5) had a greater ECL compared with what later cases had (cases 6-10) for the Sheet glide group. This difference was significant for the Sheet glide group (40.42% reduction for cases 6-10, P = 0.04) but not for the EndoSerter group (32.5% reduction for cases 6-10, P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS:: Quantitative analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the ECL between the 2 methods. With surgeon experience, there was a trend toward less ECL using both methods but especially with the Sheet glide. A novice corneal surgeon may effectively use either of these nonfold methods for initial cases. The cadaver eye model described may be a potentially useful wet-laboratory tool for novice surgeons to practice DSAEK lenticule insertion.
机译:目的:目的是确定两种常用的非折叠供体插入技术中的哪一种对最初的Descemet剥离自动内皮角膜移植术(DSAEK)病例有利。方法:本研究涉及20个随机DSAEK小透镜插入物的体外,前瞻性比较病例系列。 DSAEK的插入由人尸体眼睛中的一名新手角膜外科医生(PGY4住院医师)进行。使用Sheet glide(Surgical Glide; Beaver-Visitec International Inc,Waltham,MA)插入十个移植物,使用插入器(EndoSerter; Ocular Systems Inc,温斯顿-塞勒姆,NC)插入十个移植物。移植移植物,用锥虫蓝和茜素红S染色,并拍照以与5个对照移植物进行比较。使用Adobe Photoshop 10.0 CS3软件(Adobe系统,加利福尼亚州圣何塞)定量评估内皮损伤。结果:对照组的内皮细胞损失(ECL)为7.10%±2.27%,插入器组为12.31%±4.74%,Sheet glide组为13.31%±5.46%(P = 0.07)。早期病例(1-5号病例)的ECL大于后者在片状滑翔组中的病例(6-10号病例)。对于片状滑行组,此差异是显着的(6-10例减少40.42%,P = 0.04),而EndoSerter组则不明显(6-10例减少32.5%,P = 0.11)。结论:定量分析显示两种方法之间的ECL差异无统计学意义。根据外科医生的经验,两种方法都有减少ECL的趋势,尤其是使用Sheet滑行时。初学者角膜外科医生可以有效地使用这些非折叠方法中的任何一种。所描述的尸体眼模型对于新手外科医生来说可能是有用的湿实验室工具,以练习DSAEK小透镜的插入。

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