File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1186/s40942-023-00452-1
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85150934666
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between 10,000 and 5000 cuts per minute vitrectomy using a 25G cutter: a prospective randomized controlled study
Title | Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between 10,000 and 5000 cuts per minute vitrectomy using a 25G cutter: a prospective randomized controlled study |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 21-Mar-2023 |
Publisher | BioMed Central |
Citation | International Journal of Retina and Vitreous, 2023, v. 9, n. 1 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Purpose: This study aims to compare the performance of the 25+® UltraVit® 5000 cuts per minute (cpm) vitrectomy probe versus the 25+ ® Ultravit 10,000 cpm® beveled tip, dual drive vitrectomy probe. Method: In this prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, 52 eyes of 52 consecutive patients were randomized into either the 10,000 cpm (25 patients) or 5000 cpm vitrectomy group (27 patients). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on the first day, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The main outcome measures were vitrectomy time, and secondary endpoints were time to induction of posterior vitreous detachment, intraoperative complications, and number of instruments used. Results: The vitrectomy time was shorter in the 10,000 cpm group (413.7 s) compared to the 5000 cpm group (463.4 s), although there was no significant difference (p = 0.5999). One patient had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 10,000 cpm group while two patients had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 5000 cpm group. The time for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction and the number of instruments used were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The difference in vitrectomy times between the 10,000 cpm vitrectomy probe and the 5000 cpm cutter were not statistically significant. This may suggest that other factors affect efficiency rather than the limitations of equipment. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344601 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.776 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Fung, Nicholas SK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mak, Anthony KH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Brelen, Marten | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tsang, Chi Wai | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mohamed, Shaheeda | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lam, Wai Ching | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T06:22:29Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T06:22:29Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-03-21 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | International Journal of Retina and Vitreous, 2023, v. 9, n. 1 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2056-9920 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344601 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: This study aims to compare the performance of the 25+® UltraVit® 5000 cuts per minute (cpm) vitrectomy probe versus the 25+ ® Ultravit 10,000 cpm® beveled tip, dual drive vitrectomy probe. Method: In this prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, 52 eyes of 52 consecutive patients were randomized into either the 10,000 cpm (25 patients) or 5000 cpm vitrectomy group (27 patients). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on the first day, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The main outcome measures were vitrectomy time, and secondary endpoints were time to induction of posterior vitreous detachment, intraoperative complications, and number of instruments used. Results: The vitrectomy time was shorter in the 10,000 cpm group (413.7 s) compared to the 5000 cpm group (463.4 s), although there was no significant difference (p = 0.5999). One patient had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 10,000 cpm group while two patients had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 5000 cpm group. The time for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction and the number of instruments used were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: The difference in vitrectomy times between the 10,000 cpm vitrectomy probe and the 5000 cpm cutter were not statistically significant. This may suggest that other factors affect efficiency rather than the limitations of equipment. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | International Journal of Retina and Vitreous | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.title | Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between 10,000 and 5000 cuts per minute vitrectomy using a 25G cutter: a prospective randomized controlled study | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s40942-023-00452-1 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85150934666 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 9 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2056-9920 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 2056-9920 | - |