Scholarlink

Background <p>The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 20,000 cuts per minute (cpm) with 10,000&#xa0;cpm in vitreous cutters.</p> Methods <p>This was a prospective, parallel, single masked randomized control trial comparing the 25 gauge 20,000&#xa0;cpm HYPERVIT Dual Blade from Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA and 10,000&#xa0;cpm ULTRAVIT vitrectomy cutter from Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX. Standard T-test by SPSS version 27 was used to compare efficiency and safety between two groups.</p> Results <p>In total 72 patients were recruited for the study and among them 71 patients completed the study. This study did not show any significant difference between 20,000&#xa0;cpm probe and 10,000&#xa0;cpm probe (<i>p</i> value = 0.347) for the core vitrectomy duration in all included eyes. The mean of core vitrectomy time was 269.28&#xa0;s in the 25 gauge 20,000&#xa0;cpm group and 289.44&#xa0;s in the 25 gauge 10,000&#xa0;cpm group. However, by comparing the two systems operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, 20,000&#xa0;cpm probe had a significantly shorter mean core vitrectomy time than 10,000&#xa0;cpm group (<i>P</i> = 0.03). The majority of all the patients had no intraoperative retinal tear (98.6.8%) and post-operative retinal tear (95.8%). There were no intraoperative iatrogenic breaks, and 3 postoperative retinal tears with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) were documented. All the retinal tears belongs to the 20,000&#xa0;cpm group but no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of retinal tear and complications.</p> Conclusions <p>25-gauge 20,000&#xa0;cpm Hypervit dual blade showed a faster trend in vitrectomy time although this was not statistically significant in all included eyes. By comparing vitrectomy time operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, a significant shorter time was found in 25-gauge 20,000&#xa0;cpm. With more efficient and faster vitrectomy systems, the effect of surgeon factor likely plays a larger role. Our study suggest that the two devices may have a similar efficacy and safety. However, further studies may be needed to compare the core vitrectomy time between them after excluding the surgeon factor influence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between a 25G 20,000 and a 10,000 cuts per minute vitrectomy: a prospective randomized control study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月14日

查看全文
  • Shing Chuen Chow,
  • Jeffrey Man Yeung Lo,
  • Mehnaz Quddus,
  • Qing Li,
  • Wai Ching Lam,
  • Nicholas Siu Kay Fung

摘要

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 20,000 cuts per minute (cpm) with 10,000 cpm in vitreous cutters.

Methods

This was a prospective, parallel, single masked randomized control trial comparing the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm HYPERVIT Dual Blade from Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA and 10,000 cpm ULTRAVIT vitrectomy cutter from Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX. Standard T-test by SPSS version 27 was used to compare efficiency and safety between two groups.

Results

In total 72 patients were recruited for the study and among them 71 patients completed the study. This study did not show any significant difference between 20,000 cpm probe and 10,000 cpm probe (p value = 0.347) for the core vitrectomy duration in all included eyes. The mean of core vitrectomy time was 269.28 s in the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm group and 289.44 s in the 25 gauge 10,000 cpm group. However, by comparing the two systems operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, 20,000 cpm probe had a significantly shorter mean core vitrectomy time than 10,000 cpm group (P = 0.03). The majority of all the patients had no intraoperative retinal tear (98.6.8%) and post-operative retinal tear (95.8%). There were no intraoperative iatrogenic breaks, and 3 postoperative retinal tears with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) were documented. All the retinal tears belongs to the 20,000 cpm group but no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of retinal tear and complications.

Conclusions

25-gauge 20,000 cpm Hypervit dual blade showed a faster trend in vitrectomy time although this was not statistically significant in all included eyes. By comparing vitrectomy time operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, a significant shorter time was found in 25-gauge 20,000 cpm. With more efficient and faster vitrectomy systems, the effect of surgeon factor likely plays a larger role. Our study suggest that the two devices may have a similar efficacy and safety. However, further studies may be needed to compare the core vitrectomy time between them after excluding the surgeon factor influence.