Anterior Chamber Stability Of A Novel Phacoemulsification Machine Via The Slit Side View Method
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP04.12 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/jndj-bp81
Authors: Jasmien Rens* 1 , Anne-Sophie Bonte 2 , Luc Van Os 3 , Marie-José Tassignon 4 , Jos Rozema 3
1Ophthalmology,University Hospital Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium, 2Ophthalmology,University hospital Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium, 3Ophthalmology,University Hospital Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium;Medicine and health sciences,University of Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium, 4Ophthalmology,University Hospital Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium;Medicine and health sciences,University of Antwerp,Antwerp,Belgium;Ophthalmology,University Hospital Brussels,Jette,Belgium
Purpose
To evaluate the anterior chamber (AC) stability of UNITY VCS/CS (UVCS/UCS) when compared to CENTURION with Active Sentry (CAS) using the slit side view (SSV) technique during simulated occlusion break.
Setting
Experimental porcine eye study
Methods
Ten porcine eyes underwent testing at IOP of 20, 30, 40 mm Hg, vacuum limits of 550, 600, 650 mm Hg, and aspiration rate of 40 mL/min. Eyes had 2.4 mm incision created then transferred to slit lamp where the phacoemulsification handpiece and eye were fixed to minimize leakage. An IOP sensor was inserted into the anterior chamber. Continuous irrigation was used to stabilize IOP before an occlusion break was simulated 3 times by pinching the aspiration line with pliers for 3 seconds then released. IOP changes were recorded via a calibrated pressure transducer and SSV images were continuously recorded to determine ACD change ratio, surge duration, and surge volume during occlusion break event.
Results
UVCS and CAS were used in each eye and the choice of first machine was alternated. The ACD change was statistically significantly less with UVCS/UCS when compared to CAS (0.15 ± 0.01 vs 0.43 ± 0.07 mm, p<0.001), a 2.8 times improvement in AC stability. On average, baseline IOP was within 0.7 and 3.2 mmHg from the IOP set point with UVCS/UCS and CAS, respectively. During occlusion break, the minimum IOP was maintained significantly closer to baseline with UVCS/UCS vs CAS (19.1 ± 5.4 vs 26.9 ± 6.0 mmHg, p<0.001). Post-occlusion break surge volume and duration were significantly less with UVCS/UCS vs CAS (p<0.001) with a mean recovery time <0.17 seconds with UVCS/UCS regardless of setting.
Conclusions
UVCS/UCS maintained AC stability better than CAS during simulated occlusion break testing which may improve surgeon confidence to operate at lower IOP and clinical outcomes. Recovering from post-occlusion break surge faster than reported human reaction times suggests that UVCS/UCS can compensate for fluctuations faster than the surgeon can react.