Purpose: To compare the clinical performance and safety of 2 ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs)-Twinvisc (OVD 1) and Duovisc (OVD 2)-in cataract surgery. Setting: European multicenter study. Design: Prospective randomized controlled study. Methods: Patients with cataract had phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in 1 eye. They were randomly assigned to receive OVD 1 or OVD 2. Preoperative and postoperative examinations over 3 months included mean intraocular pressure (IOP), incidence of lOP peaks (>= 30 mm Hg and >= 24 mm Hg), endothelial cell count (ECC), corneal thickness, and intraocular inflammation. A subjective evaluation of the OVDs was performed. Results: The study comprised 220 patients. The incidence of IOP peaks and the mean IOP were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups at any of the follow-up visits. At 6 hours, the incidence of IOP spikes 30 mm Hg or higher was 6.5% and 7.2% in the OVD 1 and the OVD 2 groups, respectively (P = .846). For the IOP spikes 24 mm Hg or higher, the incidence was 16.8% and 25.2%, respectively (P = .128). Three months postoperatively there was no statistically significant difference in ECC and pachymetry between the 2 groups. Mild inflammation was noticed up to 7 days postoperatively after which it resolved in both groups. Subjectively, the OVD 2 was easier to use, whereas the OVD 1 had better cohesive and dispersive properties. Conclusions: Both OVDs have similar performance and safety profiles in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. No clinically relevant differences were found between the 2 devices regarding transient IOP spikes, mean IOP, corneal endothelium injury, or inflammation.

Comparison of the performance and safety of 2 ophthalmic viscosurgical device in cataract surgery

Vinciguerra P;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the clinical performance and safety of 2 ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs)-Twinvisc (OVD 1) and Duovisc (OVD 2)-in cataract surgery. Setting: European multicenter study. Design: Prospective randomized controlled study. Methods: Patients with cataract had phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in 1 eye. They were randomly assigned to receive OVD 1 or OVD 2. Preoperative and postoperative examinations over 3 months included mean intraocular pressure (IOP), incidence of lOP peaks (>= 30 mm Hg and >= 24 mm Hg), endothelial cell count (ECC), corneal thickness, and intraocular inflammation. A subjective evaluation of the OVDs was performed. Results: The study comprised 220 patients. The incidence of IOP peaks and the mean IOP were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups at any of the follow-up visits. At 6 hours, the incidence of IOP spikes 30 mm Hg or higher was 6.5% and 7.2% in the OVD 1 and the OVD 2 groups, respectively (P = .846). For the IOP spikes 24 mm Hg or higher, the incidence was 16.8% and 25.2%, respectively (P = .128). Three months postoperatively there was no statistically significant difference in ECC and pachymetry between the 2 groups. Mild inflammation was noticed up to 7 days postoperatively after which it resolved in both groups. Subjectively, the OVD 2 was easier to use, whereas the OVD 1 had better cohesive and dispersive properties. Conclusions: Both OVDs have similar performance and safety profiles in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. No clinically relevant differences were found between the 2 devices regarding transient IOP spikes, mean IOP, corneal endothelium injury, or inflammation.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1804627.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Altro materiale allegato
Licenza: Non specificato
Dimensione 4.45 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.45 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11699/6727
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact