Sometimes new does not mean safer
Private Practice, Ploiesti, Prahova, Romania
I was extremely interested in an article by Masuda et al,1 recently published in your Clinical Ophthalmology journal, especially after reading in the abstract that the phaco tip is the only surgical instrument required “for lens cleavage and removal”.1 The authors assert that this new technique maintains a stable intraocular pressure during hydrodissection and lens removal, whereas the existing techniques induce anterior chamber instability because three instruments are successively inserted and withdrawn. However, the attached video contradicts these assertions, as the following were observed: (i) a second instrument is used to split the grooved nucleus, to chop the quarters, and to manipulate the fragments; (ii) in all, the authors used more than three instruments: cannula for saline or for ophthalmic viscoelastic device, phaco tip, chopper, and irrigation/aspiration cannula; and (iii) the wound leakage around the chopper is obvious. Given these conditions, how could the intraocular pressure be considered stable?
Department of Ophthalmology, Jikei University Katsushika Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
We would like to thank Dr Bordeianu for his interest in our article. We would like to reply to his comments point by point.
View the original paper by Masuda and colleagues
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]