BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The authors describe the non-chopping rotation and axial rotation phacoemulsification techniques and compare them with the quick chop technique in terms of efficacy and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative study of 654 eyes of patients with cataracts who underwentphacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups according to phacoemulsification technique and were subdivided into four groups according to nuclear density. RESULTS: For grade 1 and 2 nuclei, non-chopping rotation and axial rotation techniques outperformed the quick chop technique in ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, best-corrected visual acuity, central corneal thickness, and endothelial cell loss. For grade 3 nuclei, the axial rotation technique did best according to the same terms. For grade 4 nuclei, the two rotation techniques were less efficient for lens removal. CONCLUSION: The non-chopping rotation and axial rotation phacoemulsification techniques are advisable for removal of soft to medium-hard nuclei. For hard nuclei, chopping techniques are more successful.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The authors describe the non-chopping rotation and axial rotation phacoemulsification techniques and compare them with the quick chop technique in terms of efficacy and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, comparative study of 654 eyes of patients with cataracts who underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups according to phacoemulsification technique and were subdivided into four groups according to nuclear density. RESULTS: For grade 1 and 2 nuclei, non-chopping rotation and axial rotation techniques outperformed the quick chop technique in ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy, best-corrected visual acuity, central corneal thickness, and endothelial cell loss. For grade 3 nuclei, the axial rotation technique did best according to the same terms. For grade 4 nuclei, the two rotation techniques were less efficient for lens removal. CONCLUSION: The non-chopping rotation and axial rotation phacoemulsification techniques are advisable for removal of soft to medium-hard nuclei. For hard nuclei, chopping techniques are more successful.