The effect of extracapsular cataract extraction using nucleus dislocation into anterior chamber on the corneal endothelium.
- Author:
Ji Young KIM
1
;
Jin Hak LEE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study
- Keywords: ECCE; endothelial cell count; nucleus dislocation
- MeSH: Adult; Aged; Anterior Chamber/*surgery; Cataract Extraction/*methods; Cell Count; Endothelium, Corneal/*pathology; Female; Humans; Lens Capsule, Crystalline/*surgery; Lens Nucleus, Crystalline/*surgery; Male; Middle Aged
- From:Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 1993;7(2):55-58
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: When the continuous circular capsulorhexis (CCC) is being performed, the nucleus delivery using nucleus dislocation into the anterior chamber is safer and easier than using conventional "push and pull" method to maintain an intact lens capsule. This method include such procedures that after CCC, the nucleus being freed in the capsular bag by hydrodissection and hydrodelineation, then hooked with a Sinskey hook and drawn out to the anterior chamber by rotation. It may damage the corneal endothelium because of the manipulation in the anterior chamber. To investigate an effect of this method on the corneal endothelium, we performed two months time analysis of changes of the central corneal endothelial cell density (CECD) in two groups--a group with an extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) using nucleus dislocation into the anterior chamber and a group with a conventional ECCE. Eighteen eyes of 18 cataract patients who were operated on with ECCE using nucleus dislocation into the anterior chamber method, and ten eyes of 10 cataract patients who were operated on with a conventional ECCE method were included. The CECD was measured by specular microscopy, preoperatively, postoperatively at 1 month and 2 months. The average endothelial cell loss at postoperative 1 month was 7.20 +/- 2.98% in the experimental group and 7.88 +/- 2.93% in the control group, and at postoperative 2 months was 9.05 +/- 2.96% in the experimental group and 9.34 +/- 2.95% in the control group. The change in CECD between two groups was not statistically significant.
