Comparisons of the energy efficiency and intraocular safety of two torsional phacoemulsification tips

Abstract

Abstract Background During cataract phacoemulsification surgery, an Intrepid® balanced (IB) tip can achieve a larger amplitude, which may lead to higher energy efficiency than a Kelman (K) tip when paired with a torsional phaco platform. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared their energy efficiency and damage to the cornea under a new energy setting. Methods The medical records of 104 eyes of 79 patients were reviewed, with 47 eyes belonging to the IB group and 57 eyes belonging to the K group. All surgeries were performed on an Alcon Centurion® platform with gravity infiltration. Surgical parameters, visual outcome, central corneal thickness (CCT) changes, and endothelial cell density (ECD) loss rate were recorded and calculated. Results No significant differences in postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), total ultrasound time, estimated fluid aspirated, CCT changes, or ECD loss rate were observed between the two groups. We divided the included eyes into soft nucleus and hard nucleus subgroups and found lower cumulative dissipated energy (CDE, 8.15 ± 8.02 vs 14.82 ± 14.16, P = 0.023), cumulative torsional energy (CTE, 8.06 ± 7.87 vs 14.13 ± 13.02, P = 0.027), and cumulative longitudinal energy (CLE, 0.09 ± 0.17 vs 0.69 ± 1.37, P = 0.017) in the IB group than in the K group, implying less energy used and higher energy efficiency of the IB tip. Conclusion Lower CLE in the IB group indicates fewer phaco tip obstructions and a significantly higher capability to conquer hard nuclei with IB tips with statistical significance. With an ultra-perfusion cannula, the balanced tip does not cause more corneal damage.

Keywords

• Intrepid® balanced tip
• Kelman tip
• Cumulative dissipated energy
• Corneal endothelium loss rate
• Central corneal thickness