Quantitative assessment of ophthalmic viscosurgical device retention using in vivo confocal microscopy

Abstract

Residual OVD thickness following simulated phacoemulsification could be quantitatively measured using in vivo CMTF. The results are consistent with human surgical experience in that the dispersive OVD (Viscoat) was better retained than the cohesive compounds. DisCoVisc, a new viscous-dispersive OVD, also showed retention compared with Viscoat under the experimental conditions.

Subjective evaluation of intraoperative performance of DisCoVisc in complex ocular environments

“…It has been shown that Viscoat requires a much longer time to be aspirated. 5,16,17 As shown in the results of the present series, the surgeons found that DisCoVisc removal could be done by rapid fragmentation with an irrigation/ aspiration tip. In addition, DisCoVisc did not require behind the lens technique for the washout.…”

In vitro behavior of ophthalmic viscosurgical devices during phacoemulsification

“…Increases in IOP were reported if the residual Healon5 was not removed from behind the IOL. 6,15 In this experimental study, DisCoVisc had a significantly shorter removal time compared with that of Healon5, because DisCoVisc acted much like the cohesive OVDs during aspiration. In addition, DisCoVisc did not require the use of the BTL procedure.…”

“…Both those studies reported significantly superior retention of Viscoat compared with other OVDs. Recently, Holmén and Lundgren 14 and Petroll et al 15 reported a unique technique with Scheimpflug photography and confocal microscopy. The current study included DisCoVisc and showed its superior retention to Viscoat, which had been reported previously to have the best retention time.…”

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

“…However, residual Healon 5 and residual DisCoVisc were substantial. Using confocal microscopy, Petroll et al 4 reported that DisCoVisc remained on the corneal endothelium in a manner similar to Viscoat, and that Healon 5 did not remain. Ultrasound was performed on the lens, so it is possible that Healon 5 was removed from the narrow space because of its viscoadaptive characteristics.…”