{"title":"Comparison of the clinical outcomes after manual capsulorhexis on one eye and precision pulse capsulotomy on the other eye.","authors":"Ho Sik Hwang, Hyun Seung Kim, Eun Chul Kim","doi":"10.1007/s00417-025-06783-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes after manual continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) on one eye and precision pulse capsulotomy (PPC) on the other eye in cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>60 eyes from 30 patients who underwent manual capsulorhexis on one eye (CCC group, N = 30) and precision pulse capsulotomy on the other eye (PPC group, N = 30) were retrospectively enrolled. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, and corneal endothelial cell density were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were also no significant differences between the two groups according to the change in the corneal endothelial cell density at 3 months after cataract surgery (p > 0.05). The horizontal diameter (mm) and area (mm2) of the capsulotomy of the PPC group were significantly smaller than those of the CCC at postoperative 1 day and 3 months (P < 0.05). The circularity of PPC group was significantly better than that of the CCC at postoperative 1 day and 3 months (P < 0.05) (Table 4). Postoperative reduction of the capsulotomy area of the PPC group (6.64 ± 1.47) was higher than that of the CCC group (3.48 ± 1.21) from 1 day to 3 months after cataract surgery (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PPC was as safe as CCC and more efficient than CCC for making perfectly round capsulotomy. The initial capsulotomy size of PPC was smaller than that of CCC. PPC size decreased more than CCC after several months because it might damage the anterior capsule with thermal energy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-025-06783-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes after manual continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) on one eye and precision pulse capsulotomy (PPC) on the other eye in cataract surgery.
Methods: 60 eyes from 30 patients who underwent manual capsulorhexis on one eye (CCC group, N = 30) and precision pulse capsulotomy on the other eye (PPC group, N = 30) were retrospectively enrolled. Uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, and corneal endothelial cell density were evaluated.
Results: There were also no significant differences between the two groups according to the change in the corneal endothelial cell density at 3 months after cataract surgery (p > 0.05). The horizontal diameter (mm) and area (mm2) of the capsulotomy of the PPC group were significantly smaller than those of the CCC at postoperative 1 day and 3 months (P < 0.05). The circularity of PPC group was significantly better than that of the CCC at postoperative 1 day and 3 months (P < 0.05) (Table 4). Postoperative reduction of the capsulotomy area of the PPC group (6.64 ± 1.47) was higher than that of the CCC group (3.48 ± 1.21) from 1 day to 3 months after cataract surgery (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: PPC was as safe as CCC and more efficient than CCC for making perfectly round capsulotomy. The initial capsulotomy size of PPC was smaller than that of CCC. PPC size decreased more than CCC after several months because it might damage the anterior capsule with thermal energy.
期刊介绍：
Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
