Vartika Singh¹, Balbir Singh², Gagan Kalra³, Anand Aggarwal¹*, Kamlinder Kaur¹, Amit Chopra¹, Indu Khosa¹, Gurpreet Kaur¹, Aman Kalia1 and Akash¹

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College, Patiala, India
²Member Legislative Assembly and Honorable Health Minister, Vidhan Sabha Punjab, Chandigarh, India
³ Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Pittsburgh, PA, USA

*Corresponding Author: Anand Aggarwal, Cornea, Glaucoma and Refractive Surgery Services, Department of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College Patiala, Punjab 147001, India

Received: June 05, 2025; Published: June 27, 2025

Abstract

Objective: To compare different phacoemulsification modes of nuclear disassembly (continuous, pulse and burst) in terms of post-operative visual outcomes

Methodology: A total of 450 patients diagnosed with cataract who underwent phacoemulsification surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups which were divided on the basis of phacoemulsification mode used for nuclear disassembly. Group A patients were operated in continuous mode, Group B in pulse mode and Group C in burst mode. These three groups were subsequently compared using appropriate statistical tests in terms of intraoperative parameters of phacoemulsification and post-operative visual outcomes.

Results: The mean age of presentation was 61.17 years. The mean effective phacoemulsification time (seconds) in Group A was 8.82 ± 11.86 seconds, Group B was 5.77 ± 6.71 seconds and in Group C was 6.68 ± 8.70 seconds. The mean ultrasound power (Watt) used in Group A was 18.68 ± 2.06 W, Group B was 18.73 ± 1.79 W, and Group C was 19.04 ± 1.82 W. The mean cumulative dissipated energy (Joules) in Group A was 179.70 ± 259.23 J, in Group B was 116.35 ± 144.85 J and in Group C was 137.29 ± 190.97 J. There was a statistically significant improvement seen in post-operative Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA) as compared to pre-operative UCVA in 82% subjects in Group A, 82% in Group B and 84.66% in Group C (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.0001). On post-operative day (POD) 7, Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) of 6/9 or better was achieved in 75.33% subjects of Group B, and 72% subjects of Group A as well as Group C. It improved to 82.67%, 91.33% and 84% in Group A, B and C respectively on POD180. The mean pre-operative and post-operative astigmatism was -0.94 ± 0.84 and -0.98 ± 0.91 respectively. The mean intra-ocular pressure on POD7 in Group A was 17.41 ± 2.45, in Group B was 17.32 ± 2.58 and in Group C was 17.97 ± 2.35. Corneal oedema on POD1 was present in 26% cases of Group A, 19.333% cases of Group B and 21.33% cases of Group C.

Conclusion: To achieve better visual outcomes the two most important factors during phacoemulsification surgery i.e. total energy dissipated into the eye and time it takes to emulsify the nucleus (Effective phaco time) should be kept at minimum which can be achieved with phaco power-modulation.

Keywords: Cataract; Phacoemulsification; Phaco Power Modulation

References

1. Liu YC., et al. “Cataracts”. The Lancet10094 (2017): 600-612.
2. Jones DT., et al. “Principles and techniques of cataract surgery phacoemulsification: methodology and complications”. In: Albert DM, eds. Ophthalmic Surgery: Principles and Techniques. Blackwell Science (1999): 283-312.
3. West SK and Taylor HR. “The detection and grading of cataract: an epidemiologic perspective”. Survey on Ophthalmology 3 (1986): 175-184.
4. Brillant GE and Brillant LB. “Using social epidemiology to understand who stays blind and who gets operated for cataract in a rural setting”. Social Science and Medicine 21 (1985): 553-558.
5. Linebarger EJ., et al. “Phacoemulsification and modern cataract surgery”. Survey on Ophthalmology 2 (1999): 123-147.
6. Jaffe N. “Cataract surgery and its complications”. 3^rd St. Louis, MO: Mosby 368 (1981): 576-579.
7. Ozkurt YB., et al. “Comparison of burst, pulse, and linear modes used in phacoemulsification surgery”. European Journal of Ophthalmology2 (2010): 353-364.
8. Fishkind WJ., et al. “The phaco machine: the physical principles guiding its operation”. In: Steinert RF, ed. Cataract surgery, 2^nd Philadelphia: Saunders 7 (2004): 61-77.
9. Fishkind WJ. “The phaco machine: how it acts and reacts”. In: Agarwal S, Agarwal A, Agarwal A, eds. Phacoemulsification, 3^rd New Delhi: Jaypee; 8 (2004): 87-98.
10. Buratto L. “The Physical Principles of Phacoemulsification: Principles and Techniques”. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 2 (1998): 21-32.
11. Vasavada AR and Vasavada V. “Fundamentals of power modulation”. Cataract and Refractive Surgery Today (2014): 69-71.
12. Seibel BS.“Phacodynamics: Mastering the Tools and Techniques of Phacoemulsification Surgery”. 4^th Slack (2005): 121.
13. Fine IH., et al. “Power modulations in new phacoemulsification technology: improved outcomes”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 5 (2005): 1014-1019.
14. Buratto L. “The physical principles of phacoemulsification”. In: Buratto L, ed. Phacoemulsification: Principles ant Techni ques. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; (1998): 25.
15. Badoza D., et al. “Phacoemulsification using the burst mode”. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery6 (2004): 1101-1105.
16. Narayan A., et al. “Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery”. Cochrane Database System Review 6 (2023).
17. Gimbel HV., et al. “AdvanTec Legacy System and the NeoSoniX handpiece”. Current Opinion on Ophthalmology1 (2003): 31-34.
18. Baykara M., et al. “Microincisional cataract surgery (MICS) with pulse and burst modes”. European Journal of Ophthalmology6 (2004): 804-808.
19. Yang WJ., et al. “Torsional and burst mode phacoemulsification for patients with hard nuclear cataract: A randomized control study”. Medicine (2019): 98.

Citation

Citation: Anand Aggarwal., et al. “Comparison of Different Phacoemulsification Modes of Nuclear Disassembly (Continuous, Pulse and Burst) in Terms of Post-Operative Visual Outcomes in Cataract Surgery".Acta Scientific Ophthalmology 8.7 (2025): 09-16.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Anand Aggarwal., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.