Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802013000600005 |
Resumo: | PURPOSE: To evaluate wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx in differently corneal sealed side port incisions. METHODS: Four 1.5mm tunnel squared incisions were created in each of four cadaveric human eyes. In each cornea, one incision was left unsealed, whereas the other three incisions were sealed using a 10-0 nylon suture, cyanoacrylate glue, or stromal hydration, respectively. A Seidel and an India ink test were performed on each eye. During each Seidel test, flourescein was applied, the IOP increased from 15 to 80mmHg, and the IOP at which each incision started to leak recorded. During each India ink test, ink was placed on the eye and rinsed out with balanced salt solution (BSS). Ink penetration was then measured by planimetry at physiologic conditions and after an IOP plunge from 80mmHg to 0mmHg. RESULTS: Regardless of IOP variations, no leakage or ink inflow was observed through the glued incisions. In contrast, leakage did occur in the other three sealing methods, albeit at significantly different IOP levels in each one (p=0.013). Ink inflow occurred in these sealing methods at physiologic IOP and, to a significantly greater extent, after the IOP challenge (p<0.05). At both of these IOP conditions, the differences in ink influx among these three incision-sealing methods were deemed statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: This study showed that glue was more effective at preventing wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx than other commonly used methods especially hydrosealing. |
id |
SBO-1_ff5c9f3752a2fadacc3de0ec9006fb86 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0034-72802013000600005 |
network_acronym_str |
SBO-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealingEndophthalmitisCataract extractionLimbus corneaeIntraocular pressureBiomechanicsEndoftalmiteExtração de catarataLimbo da córneaPressão intraocularBiomecânicaPURPOSE: To evaluate wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx in differently corneal sealed side port incisions. METHODS: Four 1.5mm tunnel squared incisions were created in each of four cadaveric human eyes. In each cornea, one incision was left unsealed, whereas the other three incisions were sealed using a 10-0 nylon suture, cyanoacrylate glue, or stromal hydration, respectively. A Seidel and an India ink test were performed on each eye. During each Seidel test, flourescein was applied, the IOP increased from 15 to 80mmHg, and the IOP at which each incision started to leak recorded. During each India ink test, ink was placed on the eye and rinsed out with balanced salt solution (BSS). Ink penetration was then measured by planimetry at physiologic conditions and after an IOP plunge from 80mmHg to 0mmHg. RESULTS: Regardless of IOP variations, no leakage or ink inflow was observed through the glued incisions. In contrast, leakage did occur in the other three sealing methods, albeit at significantly different IOP levels in each one (p=0.013). Ink inflow occurred in these sealing methods at physiologic IOP and, to a significantly greater extent, after the IOP challenge (p<0.05). At both of these IOP conditions, the differences in ink influx among these three incision-sealing methods were deemed statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: This study showed that glue was more effective at preventing wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx than other commonly used methods especially hydrosealing.Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia2013-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802013000600005Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.72 n.6 2013reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)instacron:SBO10.1590/S0034-72802013000600005info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKashiwabuchi,Fabiana K.Khan,Yasin A.Rodrigues Jr,Murilo W.Wang,JiangxiaMcDonnell,Peter J.Daoud,Yassine J.eng2014-03-25T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-72802013000600005Revistahttps://rbo.emnuvens.com.br/rbo/indexhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpsob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br1982-85510034-7280opendoar:2014-03-25T00:00Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
title |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
spellingShingle |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing Kashiwabuchi,Fabiana K. Endophthalmitis Cataract extraction Limbus corneae Intraocular pressure Biomechanics Endoftalmite Extração de catarata Limbo da córnea Pressão intraocular Biomecânica |
title_short |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
title_full |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
title_fullStr |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
title_full_unstemmed |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
title_sort |
Efficacy of three different methods for side port incision wound sealing |
author |
Kashiwabuchi,Fabiana K. |
author_facet |
Kashiwabuchi,Fabiana K. Khan,Yasin A. Rodrigues Jr,Murilo W. Wang,Jiangxia McDonnell,Peter J. Daoud,Yassine J. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Khan,Yasin A. Rodrigues Jr,Murilo W. Wang,Jiangxia McDonnell,Peter J. Daoud,Yassine J. |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Kashiwabuchi,Fabiana K. Khan,Yasin A. Rodrigues Jr,Murilo W. Wang,Jiangxia McDonnell,Peter J. Daoud,Yassine J. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Endophthalmitis Cataract extraction Limbus corneae Intraocular pressure Biomechanics Endoftalmite Extração de catarata Limbo da córnea Pressão intraocular Biomecânica |
topic |
Endophthalmitis Cataract extraction Limbus corneae Intraocular pressure Biomechanics Endoftalmite Extração de catarata Limbo da córnea Pressão intraocular Biomecânica |
description |
PURPOSE: To evaluate wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx in differently corneal sealed side port incisions. METHODS: Four 1.5mm tunnel squared incisions were created in each of four cadaveric human eyes. In each cornea, one incision was left unsealed, whereas the other three incisions were sealed using a 10-0 nylon suture, cyanoacrylate glue, or stromal hydration, respectively. A Seidel and an India ink test were performed on each eye. During each Seidel test, flourescein was applied, the IOP increased from 15 to 80mmHg, and the IOP at which each incision started to leak recorded. During each India ink test, ink was placed on the eye and rinsed out with balanced salt solution (BSS). Ink penetration was then measured by planimetry at physiologic conditions and after an IOP plunge from 80mmHg to 0mmHg. RESULTS: Regardless of IOP variations, no leakage or ink inflow was observed through the glued incisions. In contrast, leakage did occur in the other three sealing methods, albeit at significantly different IOP levels in each one (p=0.013). Ink inflow occurred in these sealing methods at physiologic IOP and, to a significantly greater extent, after the IOP challenge (p<0.05). At both of these IOP conditions, the differences in ink influx among these three incision-sealing methods were deemed statistically insignificant. CONCLUSION: This study showed that glue was more effective at preventing wound leakage and bacteria-sized particle influx than other commonly used methods especially hydrosealing. |
publishDate |
2013 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2013-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802013000600005 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802013000600005 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S0034-72802013000600005 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.72 n.6 2013 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO) instacron:SBO |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO) |
instacron_str |
SBO |
institution |
SBO |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
sob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br |
_version_ |
1752122336888225792 |