ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

Although in theory it has been supported that the phacoemulsification energy could be used more efficient with the use of ICE and CASE systems, we could not observed any statistically significant advantage of these systems in our case series.

Results:

The mean US time, total phaco % and EPT were 1 minute 57 seconds, 5.21% and 5.34 secs for G1 and 1 minute 62 seconds, 6.8% and 6.46 secs for G2 (p1). The mean postoperative pachymetry measurement differences were 48.33 ^ for G1 and 53.20 ^ for G2 (p2). The mean early postoperative uncorrected visual acuities were 0.45 line in Snellen chart for G1 and 0.40 line for G2 (p3). Mostly no or mild corneal edema and anterior chamber reactions were ob-served. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the groups. (p1= 0.964, p2=0.744, p3= 0.454).

Methods:

Between May and June 2006 conventional phacoemulsification with ICE and CASE settings (G1) was performed in 20 eyes of 20 patients and conventional phacoemulsification without these settings (G2) was performed in 20 eyes of 20 patients by using the AMO-So-vereign Whitestar (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, CA) surgical system. Patients were randomly enrolled to the groups. Patients were examined for intraoperative complications, me-an phaco time, total phaco %, effective phaco time (EPT), postoperative corneal edema, anterior chamber reactions and mean uncorrected and best corrected visual acuities. The safety and the efficacy of the systems were evaluated by the statistical analysis of surgical outcomes.

Purpose:

To compare the safety and efficacy of conventional phacoemulsification surgeries performed with or without ICE (increased control and efficiency) and CASE (chamber stabilization environment) settings.