Residual amounts of ophthalmic viscosurgical devices on the corneal endothelium following phacoemulsification

Yoshino, Masataka; Bissen-Miyajima, Hiroko; Ohki, Shinichi

doi:10.1007/s10384-008-0601-3

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We investigated the adhesive force of Healon, Provisc, Viscoat, and Discovisc because their retention times in the eye have already been evaluated. 5,6,25) As shown in Table 2, the adhesive force of four OVDs correlated well with the removal times of each OVD after intraocular lens implantation (Healon 3.6 s; Provisc 3.66 s; Discovisc 10.68 s; Viscoat 53.23 s). 5) According to the CDI classification, Healon and Provisc are cohesive type and Viscoat is a dispersive type OVD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Actually, many surgeons agree that dispersive OVDs are difficult to remove from the eye compared with cohesive OVDs. [5][6][7][8] We presumed that this resulted from the difference in the adhesive force between two types of OVDs. However, there are no reports to compare the adhesive forces of the two types of OVDs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To discuss the behavior of OVDs in the eye during surgery, we evaluated the adhesive forces of Viscoat, Discovisc, Provisc, and Healon because the residence times of these products in the eye have already been determined. 5) Statistics In the measurements of the adhesive force, he general linear models with Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison were performed for statistical comparisons between two groups of OVD samples. p-values of less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dispersive OVDs tend to lie adjacent to the corneal endothelium and be retained in the eye during phacoemulsification and aspiration (PEA), which results in difficulty in removing them from the affected area. [5][6][7][8] To take advantage of their positive attributes, the dispersive-cohesive viscoelastic soft shell technique has evolved for cataract surgery, which involves using dispersive and cohesive OVDs together in sequence. 2) In the classification based on the cohesion-dispersion index (CDI), the value for cohesive OVDs is 30 or more and that for dispersive OVDs is less than 30.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Rheological and Adhesive Properties to Identify Cohesive and Dispersive Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of the rheological properties and adhesive force of ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) as parameters for understanding and identifying the surgical behavior of cohesive and dispersive OVDs. The apparent viscosity, and the storage and loss moduli (dynamic rheological parameters) of 50% chondroitin sulfate (CS), 3% sodium hyaluronate (HA), Shellgan (the combination of 3% HA and 4% CS), Opegan (1% HA with a low molecular mass) and Opegan-Hi (1% HA with a high molecular mass) were obtained with a rheometer. The adhesive force of each sample was measured by using a texture analyzer. Opegan-Hi showed a solid-like behavior, while 50% CS showed a fluid-like behavior from their apparent viscosity and dynamic rheological parameters. Shellgan, 3% HA, and Opegan exhibited similar rheological properties and intermediate characteristics between Opegan-Hi and 50% CS, although their respective values were slightly different. Among these OVD samples, the adhesive force was higher in the order of 50% CS > Shellgan, 3% HA > Opegan > Opegan-Hi. The adhesive force of dispersive OVDs tended to be higher than that of cohesive OVDs, which correlated well with the removal times of OVDs from the eye that have previously been reported. In conclusion, we demonstrated that cohesive OVDs and dispersive OVDs have particular rheological and adhesive properties that can be applied to identify both types. These parameters obtained in this study provide useful information for a greater understanding and prediction of the behavior of OVDs in the eye during surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rheological and Adhesive Properties to Identify Cohesive and Dispersive Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Protection could be related to endothelium-coating properties of the OVDs. Two studies using animal eyes found that a thin uniform layer of DisCoVisc OVD remained as a lining on the inner cornea after phacoemulsification and removal of OVD; the investigators suggested that this coating was indicative of the protective effects of the DisCoVisc OVD 19,20. The residual layer of DisCoVisc OVD (325 μm ± 164) was significantly thicker than the residual layer of Healon OVD (4 ± 11 μm) 20.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety, efficacy, and intraoperative characteristics of DisCoVisc and Healon ophthalmic viscosurgical devices for cataract surgery

Modi

Davison²,

Walters³

2011

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of DisCoVisc ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD, Alcon Laboratories, Inc) with respect to a comparator, Healon OVD (Advanced Medical Optics, Inc).Patients and methodsIn this prospective study, patients with cataracts were randomized to an OVD, and then received phacoemulsification and injection of an intraocular lens. After each surgery, unmasked investigators completed subjective questionnaires about OVD characteristics during each stage of the procedure. Masked technicians evaluated objective safety parameters of intraocular pressure (IOP) and endothelial cell density, with 90 days of follow-up.ResultsThe DisCoVisc OVD group (128 eyes) and the Healon OVD group (121 eyes) had statistically similar outcomes for IOP and for endothelial cell loss. Subjectively assessed viscosity was statistically different (P < 0.0001), with Healon OVD most often rated “cohesive” and DisCoVisc OVD most often rated “both dispersive and cohesive”. Workspace maintenance differed between groups (P < 0.0001), with workspace most frequently rated “full chamber maintained” when using DisCoVisc OVD and most frequently rated “workspace maintained” when using Healon OVD. “Flat” or “shallow” workspace ratings occurred only in the Healon OVD group.ConclusionDisCoVisc OVD had both cohesive and dispersive properties, and was safe and effective for every stage of cataract surgery.

show abstract

Current World Literature

2010

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residual amounts of ophthalmic viscosurgical devices on the corneal endothelium following phacoemulsification

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Rheological and Adhesive Properties to Identify Cohesive and Dispersive Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices

Rheological and Adhesive Properties to Identify Cohesive and Dispersive Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices

Safety, efficacy, and intraoperative characteristics of DisCoVisc and Healon ophthalmic viscosurgical devices for cataract surgery

Current World Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About