Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Comparative analysis of anterior chamber stability with a cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device versus the soft-shell technique.

Created on 22 Jun 2025

Authors

Daniel M Handzel, Chiraz Ben Abdallah, Markus S Ladewig, Walter Sekundo

Published in

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. Jun 21, 2025. Epub Jun 21, 2025.

Abstract

To study the properties of different ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVD) in respect of their ability to create and maintain high intraocular pressure (IOP) during the creation of a continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC).
In this randomized interventional study IOP was measured using rebound tonometry with sterilized probes immediately before the beginning of the CCC and immediately afterwards during cataract surgery. The study included 177 eyes in four groups using two different OVD - hyaluronic acid (HA) and a combination of HA and hydroxy propylmethylcellulosis (HPMC) according to the soft shell-technique (SST) - and two different instruments, Utrata forceps (UF) and 26 g cystotome (RN).
The drop in intraocular pressure (IOP) during capsulorhexis was measured at 57.0 ± 12.2 mmHg in eyes treated with HA (90) and 63.1 ± 13.4 mmHg in eyes treated with SS (87). The difference in IOP reduction between HA and SS did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.060).
The use of different OVD did not result in a significant difference in IOP drop. As the soft shell-technique has shown superiority in respect of endothelial protection, these results should encourage cataract surgeon to resort to the soft shell-technique more often if not use it as a standard technique.

PMID:
40542859
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 22 Jun 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 30
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement