Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 9, pp 2097–2102 | Cite as

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

  • Michele Coppola
  • Alessandro Marchese
  • Alessandro Rabiolo
  • Maria Vittoria Cicinelli
  • Karl Anders KnutssonEmail author
Original Paper
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cataract surgery Phacoemulsification Stop and chop Divide and conquer Surgical training, cumulative dissipated energy 

References

  1. 1.
    Linebarger EJ, Hardten DR, Shah GK, Lindstrom RL (1999) Phacoemulsification and modern cataract surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 44(2):123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Park JH, Lee SM, Kwon JW, Kim MK, Hyon JY, Wee WR, Lee JH, Han YK (2010) Ultrasound energy in phacoemulsification: a comparative analysis of phaco-chop and stop-and-chop techniques according to the degree of nuclear density. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 41(2):236–241.  https://doi.org/10.3928/15428877-20100303-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park J, Yum HR, Kim MS, Harrison AR, Kim EC (2013) Comparison of phaco-chop, divide-and-conquer, and stop-and-chop phaco techniques in microincision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(10):1463–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.04.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taravella MJ, Davidson R, Erlanger M, Guiton G, Gregory D (2011) Characterizing the learning curve in phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(6):1069–1075.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.12.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gross FJ, Garcia-Zalisnak DE, Bovee CE, Strawn JD (2016) A comparison of pop and chop to divide and conquer in resident cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol 10:1847–1851.  https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S115840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yen AJ, Ramanathan S (2017) Advanced cataract learning experience in United States ophthalmology residency programs. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(10):1350–1355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. The longitudinal study of cataract study group. Arch Ophthalmol 111(6):831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roohipoor R, Yaseri M, Teymourpour A, Kloek C, Miller JB, Loewenstein JI (2017) Early performance on an eye surgery simulator predicts subsequent resident surgical performance. J Surg Educ 74(6):1105–1115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pittner A, Nolan M, Traish A, Farooq A, Feder R, Hill G, Dwarakanathan S, McGaghie W, Bouchard C (2016) Standardized approach to training for cataract surgery skill evaluation. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(6):855–863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin KR, Burton RL (2000) The phacoemulsification learning curve: per-operative complications in the first 3000 cases of an experienced surgeon. Eye (Lond) 14(Pt 2):190–195.  https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2000.52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lhuillier L, Jeancolas AL, Renaudin L, Goetz C, Ameloot F, Premy S, Ouamara N, Perone JM (2017) Impact of ophthalmic surgeon experience on early postoperative central corneal thickness after cataract surgery. Cornea 36(5):541–545.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corey RP, Olson RJ (1998) Surgical outcomes of cataract extractions performed by residents using phacoemulsification. J Cataract Refract Surg 24(1):66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puri S, Kiely AE, Wang J, Woodfield AS, Ramanathan S, Sikder S (2015) Comparing resident cataract surgery outcomes under novice versus experienced attending supervision. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1675–1681.  https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S85769 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Payal AR, Gonzalez-Gonzalez LA, Chen X, Cakiner-Egilmez T, Chomsky A, Baze E, Vollman D, Lawrence MG, Daly MK (2016) Outcomes of cataract surgery with residents as primary surgeons in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(3):370–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmidt CM, Sundararajan M, Biggerstaff KS, Orengo-Nania S, Coffee RE, Khandelwal SS (2016) Indications and outcomes of resident-performed cataract surgery requiring return to the operating room. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(3):385–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Coppola
    • 1
  • Alessandro Marchese
    • 2
  • Alessandro Rabiolo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Vittoria Cicinelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Karl Anders Knutsson
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Ophthalmology UnitDesio HospitalDesioItaly
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologySan Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  3. 3.Cornea and Ocular Surface UnitSan Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations