A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Castro, Emerson F.S., Santhiago, Marcony R., Kara-Junior, Newton
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/45872
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/ 4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/ chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection.
id USP-19_e5263d58a0585dc0ad025b5bb6a889f9
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/45872
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye studyCataractViscoelastic AgentIntraocular LensOBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/ 4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/ chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2012-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/4587210.6061/clinics/2012(09)13Clinics; Vol. 67 No. 9 (2012); 1059-1062Clinics; v. 67 n. 9 (2012); 1059-1062Clinics; Vol. 67 Núm. 9 (2012); 1059-10621980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/45872/49475Espíndola, Rodrigo F.Castro, Emerson F.S.Santhiago, Marcony R.Kara-Junior, Newtoninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2012-10-10T20:42:27Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/45872Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2012-10-10T20:42:27Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
spellingShingle A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Cataract
Viscoelastic Agent
Intraocular Lens
title_short A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_full A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_fullStr A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_full_unstemmed A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
title_sort A clinical comparison between DisCoVisc and 2% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in phacoemulsification: a fellow eye study
author Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
author_facet Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
author_role author
author2 Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Espíndola, Rodrigo F.
Castro, Emerson F.S.
Santhiago, Marcony R.
Kara-Junior, Newton
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Cataract
Viscoelastic Agent
Intraocular Lens
topic Cataract
Viscoelastic Agent
Intraocular Lens
description OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare the effects and outcomes of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices, 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate and 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, during phacoemulsification. METHODS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial comprised 78 eyes (39 patients) that received phacoemulsification performed by the same surgeon using a standardized technique. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate or 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose on the first eye. The other eye was treated later and received the other viscoelastic agent. Preoperative and postoperative examinations (5, 24 and 48 hours; 7 and 14 days; 3 and 6 months) included measurements of the total volume of the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, ultrasound and washout times to completely remove the ophthalmic viscosurgical device, intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity. The corneal endothelial cell count was measured at baseline and at six months postoperatively. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387620. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cataract density or ultrasound time. However, it took longer to remove 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose than 1.6% hyaluronic acid/ 4.0% chondroitin sulfate, and the amount of viscoelastic material used was greater in the 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose group. In addition, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the hyaluronic acid/ chondroitin sulfate group, but this preferable outcome was only observed at 24 hours after the operation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices regarding the central corneal thickness or intraocular pressure measurements at any point in time. The corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher in the hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate group. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmic viscosurgical device consisting of 1.6% hyaluronic acid/4.0% chondroitin sulfate was more efficient during phacoemulsification and was easier to remove after IOL implantation than 2.0% hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. In addition, the corneal endothelial cell count was significantly higher following the use of hyaluronic acid/chondroitin sulfate than with hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, which promoted an improved level of corneal endothelium protection.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/45872
10.6061/clinics/2012(09)13
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/45872
identifier_str_mv 10.6061/clinics/2012(09)13
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/45872/49475
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 67 No. 9 (2012); 1059-1062
Clinics; v. 67 n. 9 (2012); 1059-1062
Clinics; Vol. 67 Núm. 9 (2012); 1059-1062
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222759137050624