CHICK FEED TECHNIQUE VERSUS STANDARD CHOP TECHNIQUE IN MICRO INCISION CATARACT SURGERY
AbstractBackground: The important factor for improving the cataract surgery is reduction in size of cornealincision. Small incision results in less induced astigmatism, and faster visual rehabilitation. Methods: Ananalysis of 100 eyes of 80 patients operated for phacoemulsification through micro incision by standardchop technique (50 eyes) in group-I, and chick feed technique (50 eyes) in group-II is presented. All of thepatients were operated on by posterior limbal corneal incision under topical or sub-tenon anesthesia. In allpatients, posterior chamber bag fixation foldable intraocular lens implantation was performed through 1.4to 1.6 mm corneal incision. Results: Forty patients (80%) out of fifty operated in group-2 had an over allvisual recovery of 6/12 to 6/9 on day one post operative, as compared to group-1 where only ten (20%)patients out of fifty had visual recovery of 6/12 to 6/9. In the second week, out of 37 patients operated ingroup-2, thirty patients (81%) had visual acuity 6/6. Similarly in second week post operative, out of fortythree patients operated in group-1, only eighteen patients (41.8%) had V/A of 6/6. Maximum visualrecovery was observed in early post operative phase in group-2 patients. Conclusion: The chick feedtechnique has been proved to be the most compromising method in micro incision cataract surgery, ascompared to standard chop method, due to its capability of working on low energy and negligible vacuum.Keywords: Cataract; Phaco MICS; Chick Feed Technique; Standard Chop Technique
Kelman CD. Phaco-emulsification and aspiration. A new
technique of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am J
Girard LJ. Ultrasonic fragmentation for cataract extraction and
cataract complications. Adv Ophthalmol 1978;37:127–35.
Girard LJ. Pars plana Lensectomy by ultrasonic fragmentation:
-Part II: Operative and Post operative complications
avoidance or management. Ophthalmic Surg 1984;15:217–20.
Shearing SP, Relyea RL, Loaiza A, Shearing RL. Routine
Phacoemulsification through a 1 mm non-sutured incision.
Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Narang P, Narang S. Phaco NIT.
Phacoemulsification through a 0.9 mm corneal incision. J
Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:1548–52.
Pandey SK, Werner L, Agarwal A, Agarwal A, Lal V, Patel
N, et al. Phaconit. Cataract removal through a sub 1 mm
Incision and implantation of the ThinOptX rollable intraocular
lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1710–3.
Agarwal A, Agarwal S, Agarwal A. Phaconit with an Acrytech
IOL . J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:854–5.
Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y.Feasibility of ultrasound
cataract surgery with a 1.4 mm incision . J Cataract Refract
Randall Olson: “Microphaco chop” In: David Changs textbook
on “Phaco Chop;” USA: Slack; 2004. p.227–37.
David Chang: “Bimanual phaco chop” In David Changs
textbook on “Phaco Chop;” USA: Slack; 2004. p.239–50.
Tsuneoka H, Hayama A, Takahama M. Ultra small incision bimanual Phacoemulsification and Acrysof SA30AL
implantation through a 2.2 mm incision. J Cataract Refract
Alio JL. What does MICS require. In: Alio’s textbook MICS.
Highlights Ophthalmol. 2004;1–4.
Demong TT, Yoshida K. Evaluation of Soft Foldable IOLs in
relation to PMMA Lenses. Ophthalmic Practice. 1996;2:61–4.
Khan AA, Azher AN, Chohan AM. Review of 100 Cases of
Phacoemulsification. Pak J Ophthalmol 1997;13:37–40.
Olson R. Viscoelastic to the rescue. In: Obstbaum SA,
moderator. Advances in cataract surgery: devices, applications,
techniques. Ophthalmol Times 2004;29(Suppl-3):12–3.
Brauweiler P. Bimanual irrigation/aspiration. J Cataract Refract
Pirazzoli G, D’Eliseo D, Ziosi M, Acciarri R. Effects of
phacoemulsification time on the corneal endothelium using
phacofracture and phaco chop techniques. J Cataract Refract
Hayashi K, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Corneal endothelial cell loss
after phacoemulsification using nuclear cracking procedures. J
Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20:44–7.
Tsuneoka H, Shiba T, Takahashi Y. Ultrasonic
Phacoemulsification using a 1.4 mm incision: Clinical Results.
J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:81–6.
Brown DC. Point/counterpoint: Which technique do you prefer
for phaco? Cataract Refract Surg Today 2001;2:18–20.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.