Laser Cataract Surgery More Accurate Than Manual

Laser Cataract Surgery More Accurate Than Manual.
Cataract surgery, already an to the nth degree protected and successful procedure, can be made more demanding by combining a laser and three-dimensional imaging, a remodelled study suggests. Researchers found that a femtosecond laser, cast-off for many years in LASIK surgery, can cut into delicate eye chain more cleanly and accurately than manual cataract surgery, which is performed more than 1,5 million times each year in the United States fitness. In the present-day procedure, which has a 98 percent attainment rate, surgeons use a micro-blade to separated a circle around the cornea before extracting the cataract with an ultrasound machine.

The laser methodology uses optical coherence technology to customize each patient's optic measurements before slicing through the lens capsule and cataract, though ultrasound is still reach-me-down to remove the cataract itself. "It takes some dexterity and energy to break the lens with the ultrasound," explained influence researcher Daniel Palanker, an associate professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University how much time melaban take to clear acne scars. "The laser helps to haste this up and make it safer".

After practicing the laser plan on pig eyes and donated human eyes, Palanker and his colleagues did further experiments to strengthen that the high-powered, rapid-pulse laser would not cause retinal damage. Actual surgeries later performed on 50 patients between the ages of 55 and 80 showed that the laser hew down circles in lens capsules 12 times more definite than those achieved by the accustomed method. No adverse chattels were reported.

The study, reported in the Nov 17, 2010 conclusion of Science Translational Medicine, was funded by OpticaMedica Corp of Santa Clara, Calif, in which Palanker has an fairness stake. The results are being reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration, while the laser technology, which is being developed by several solitary companies, is expected to be released worldwide in 2011.

Dr Scott Greenstein, a extensive ophthalmology and cataracts adept at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, said he was uneasy that the probing was funded by a ensemble with a hitch in the outcome. But he added that the data was encouraging. "I from one's own viewpoint am excited by it," said Greenstein, who teaches ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School. "It's an enhancement of something we're already doing that's relatively successful. We demand a figure of centers studying this with more patients. It would be useful to divine if there is a significant statistical difference in the outcomes".

Both Greenstein and Dr Richard Bensinger, a Seattle ophthalmologist and spokesman for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, expressed uneasiness that the laser-guided cataract surgery would be much more precious than handbook surgery and were skeptical that health insurance companies would be willing to option up the tab. "It's a fairly expensive way to do something we do ethical now with a $120 instrument that makes the opening. It's good to the extent that it can avoid a tear in the cornea - but the downside is you prerequisite a very expensive machine to do it. It's at best a little nicety that adds a little precision".

Although the femtosecond laser technique is unquestionably more precise, Palanker's state that it results in a better fit for the artificial lens replacing the clouded one is dubious, Bensinger and Greenstein said. Experienced surgeons performing vade-mecum cataract surgery hardly have uprising aligning the new lens with the pupil and keeping it in place.

So "Over the thousands of cases I've done, I'm real not wise personally of this being a problem. If you have a less precise, prepared surgeon then this would be a benefit for the patient. It makes reproducible, adroit incisions every time". Palanker said further research will converge on whether laser-guided cataract surgery results in better postoperative vision than conventional surgery capsule. Among the small group of study participants there was no significant idiosyncrasy in outcomes between the two.