medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2003, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2003; 77 (6)

Estudio comparativo con dos tipos de viscoelástico en facoemulsificación

Garzon M, Morales-Gómez ME

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 219-222
PDF size: 492.78 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and security for anterior chamber use of Biovisc® (sodium hyaluronate 1.6%) and Duovisc® (sodium hyaluronate 1%, sodium hyaluronate 3% and condroitin sulfate 4%).
Methods: A prospective, longitudinal and comparative study was realized. Thirty patients with non-traumatic cataract were included. All patients had a complete preoperative examination, including specular microscopy, paquimetry and echography. The patients were divided in two groups. In the first group the patient underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation with Biovisc® and the second with Duovisc®. The postoperative follow up was realized on days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15 and 30 valuing visual acuity, anterior chamber microscopy and tonometry.
Results: The mean preoperative visual acuity was 20/120 and 20/25 postoperatively in both groups. Endothelial cell loss was similar for both groups.
Conclusion: The two types of viscoelastic offer safety and efficacy.


REFERENCES

  1. Kleiman NJ, Worgul Bv. Lens. En: Tasman W, Jaeger EA (eds). Duane’s Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology, 1994; Vol 1, Chap 15: 26-33.

  2. Binkhorst CD, Loones LH, Nygaard P. Die Beduetung der Spiegelmikroskopie usn graphiedes Hornhautendothels fur die Einpflanzung Kunstlicher Augenllinsen. Beschreibung einer Tiefkammertechnik fur Einpflanzung. Ber Dtsch Ophtalmol Ges 1978; 75:93–103.

  3. Thim K, Krag S, Corrydon I. Hidroexpression and viscoexpression of the nucleus through a continous circular capsulorhexis. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19:209-212.

  4. Blaho KE. Adjuntive agents. En: Barlett JD, Jaanus SD (eds): Clinical Ocular Pharmacology. Buttterworth-Heinemann, Newton, 1995; 442-444.

  5. Hutz WW, Eckhardt HB, Kohnen T. Comparison of viscoelasticsubstances used in phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:955-959.

  6. Assia El, Apple DJ, Lim ES, Morgan RC, Tsai JC. Removal viscoelastic material after experimental cataract surgery in vivo. J Cataract Refract Surg 1992; 18:3-6.

  7. Fechner PU, Fechner MU. Methylcellulose and lens implantation. British J Ophthalmol 1983; 67:259-263.

  8. Arshinoff S. The physical properties of ophthalmic viscoelastic in cataract surgery. Preceedings National Ophthalmic Speakers Program. Medicopea, Montreal, 1992.

  9. Lang E, Mark D, Miller D, Wik O. Shear flow characteristic of sodium hyalluronate. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102:1079-1082.

  10. Glasser DB, Matsuda M, Edelhauser HF. A comparison of the efficacy and toxicity of and intraocular pressure response to viscous solutions in the anterior chamber. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104:1819-1824.

  11. Nguyen LK, Yee RW, Sigler SC, Ye H-S. Use of in vitro models of bovine corneal endothelial cells to determine the relative toxicity of viscoelastic agents. J Cataract Refract Surg 1991; 17:613-616.

  12. Holzer MP, Tetz MR, Auffarth GU y col. Effect of Healon 5 and 4 other viscoelastics substances on intraocular pressure and endothelium after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surgr 2001; 27:213-218.

  13. Dick HB, Kohnen T, Jacobi FK y col. Long term endothelial cell loss following phacoemulsification through a temporal clear corneal incision. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996; 22:63-71.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com