A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of two popular nuclear disassembly techniques for cataract surgeons in training: divide and conquer versus stop and chop. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare two common phacoemulsification techniques in the learning curve phase, and their effect on ultrasound energy dissipation.

Methods: One hundred and ten consecutive patients scheduled for cataract surgery with the same surgeon in training were prospectively enrolled. Study was divided in two parts. In the first one, 60 patients were stratified for cataract grade [nuclear opalescence (NO) grade 2-4] and divided in two groups receiving surgery with the divide-and-conquer technique (Group-1) and with the stop-and-chop technique (Group-2). In the second part, 50 patients were stratified according to cataract grade (NO2-6), and the surgeon had to choose one of the two techniques according to personal preference. The primary outcome was the cumulative dissipated energy (CDE).

Results: Significant differences of CDE were observed between the NO3 and NO4 cataracts in Group-1. In Group-2, this difference was not significant, suggesting that with more advanced cataracts, the stop-and-chop technique allows less ultrasound use. In the second part of the study, the stop and chop was most frequently used for more advanced cataracts. When considering harder cataracts (NO5-NO6), patients receiving surgery with the divide-and-conquer technique had higher CDE values compared to stop and chop.

Conclusions: Both divide-and-conquer and stop-and-chop techniques are efficient in the learning curve. Stop and chop dissipates less energy in harder nuclei. Once surgeons reach sufficient experience with both techniques, they should switch to a stop-and-chop technique, allowing lower levels of ultrasound energy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1046-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

stop-and-chop technique
12
learning curve
8
ultrasound energy
8
patients stratified
8
stratified cataract
8
cataract grade
8
receiving surgery
8
surgery divide-and-conquer
8
divide-and-conquer technique
8
advanced cataracts
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!