COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of the Posterior Capsule Rupture Rates Associated with Conventional (Start to Finish) Versus Reverse Methods of Teaching Phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE: Comparison of the rates of posterior capsule rupture (PCR) associated with conventional versus a reverse method of teaching phacoemulsification.

METHODS: Trainees were taught conventional (start-to-finish) phacoemulsification beginning with an incision (tunnel construction) to capsulorhexis, sculpting, nucleus cracking, segment removal, cortex aspiration, intraocular lens implantation, and viscoelastic removal. In the reverse method, after incision and capsulorhexis, the trainees were progressively taught viscoelastic wash, cortex aspiration, segment removal, nucleus cracking, sculpting, and intraocular lens implantation. Trainees from a Tertiary Eye Care Centre were classified as beginners, for their first 30 cases and then trainees for their next 70 surgeries. Data were collected on posterior capsular rent and vitreous loss during each step of training.

RESULTS: Thirty-two ophthalmic surgeons learning phacoemulsification surgery on 609 cataracts cases were supervised by 3 trainers. Fifteen beginners performed 287 surgeries using the conventional method, and 17 beginners performed 322 surgeries with the reverse method. The incidence of PCR was 18/287 (6.2%) with the conventional method and 15/322 (4.6%) with the reverse method (P = 0.38). PCR occurred during cortex aspiration (8/287, 2.8%) and segment removal (5/287, 1.7%) in the conventional method. PCR occurred during nucleus cracking, segment removal, and cortex aspiration (4/322 surgeries for each step, 1.2%). In the follow, 70 cases (trainees) there was no difference in PCR with either method (4.7% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.705).

CONCLUSION: Conventional and reverse method for training phacoemulsification were both safe in a supervised setting.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app