Comparison of Phacoemulsification Grooving Efficiency in Longitudinal vs Transversal Handpieces

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the difference, if any, in grooving efficiency at various settings on the Whitestar Signature Pro phacoemulsification (phaco) system.

Methods

Cataractous lenses were simulated by exposing porcine lenses to formalin for 2 hours. A total of 120 lenses were analyzed at various power settings on both longitudinal and transversal handpieces. Twenty trials each were performed with power set to 25%, 50%, and 75% on both handpieces. A Whitestar Phaco Handpiece System was used to provide longitudinal power, and a Whitestar Signature Ellipsis Handpiece provided transversal power. Lenses were placed within a plastic chamber and grooved by an investigator blinded to settings. A second investigator recorded times and adjusted settings. The Whitestar Signature Pro phaco system was used for grooving.

Results

There was no significant difference in grooving times between the longitudinal and transverse handpieces at any power setting (P > 0.05). There was a significant decrease in grooving times when comparing the 25% power setting with the 75% power setting for the transversal handpiece (P=0.021).

Conclusion

Both longitudinal and transversal handpieces on the Whitestar Signature Pro phaco system produce similar results to one another at each power setting. There is a general trend toward shorter grooving times, reflecting greater efficiency, at higher power settings. Grooving efficiency on the transversal handpiece may be more affected by changes in the power settings as compared with the longitudinal settings.

Keywords:

• phacoemulsification
• cataract
• phacoemulsification energy
• transversal ultrasound
• phacoemulsification efficiency

Abbreviations

ANOVA, analysis of variance; BSS, balanced saline solution; phaco, phacoemulsification.

Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

Since no human subjects were involved, approval from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board was not obtained.

Acknowledgments

Susan Schulman assisted with editing and manuscript preparation.

Disclosure

Dr Olson is on the Board of Directors of Perceive Bio and the Scientific Advisory Board of Perfect Lens. Dr Jeff Pettey reports a Consulting agreement for Lensar, outside the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York, USA, to the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. The sponsor had no involvement in any of the stages from study design to submission of the manuscript for publication.