Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39434832›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Discrepancies in CDE and Measured Phaco Tip Energy: Comparison of Energy Produced in Longitudinal and Torsional Ultrasound Using Calorimetry.

Reiker G Ricks, Ivan A Cardenas, Jenna L Jensen, Tanner K Nelson, Randall J Olson, Jeff H Pettey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Reiker G RicksDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5453-1219
Ivan A CardenasDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5821-1407
Jenna L JensenDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5356-8586
Tanner K NelsonDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3371-810X
Randall J OlsonDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5760-4065
Jeff H PetteyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4587-8768

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the differences between the heat energy produced during cataract surgery and Cumulative dissipated energy (CDE). CDE is often used as a medium for understanding the energy delivered to the eye during cataract surgery. However, the actual energy produced at the tip level of the tip is not well understood. We propose that a discrepancy may exist between the CDE reported by the surgical machine and the actual energy delivered to the eye. Methods: About 50 mL of distilled water were degassed and placed in an isobaric calorimeter. Using the Alcon Centurion and Ozil handpiece fitted with the balanced tip, an investigator immersed the phaco tip into the water and pressed the foot pedal to position 3. The device was set to 100% continuous power, vacuum to 0 mmHg, with aspiration 12 mL/min aspiration. To prevent system changes in the system within the calorimeter, the aspiration tubing was occluded. Temperature change recorded by another investigator was observed from 0 to 60 seconds. After 60 seconds the first researcher immediately released the pedal and removed the phaco tip from the water. Trials were performed 10 times using solely torsional or longitudinal settings and averaged. CDE also was recorded and averaged. Results: No significant difference was seen in the temperature change or energy calculated in Joules between ultrasound modalities, with torsional producing a magnitude of 163 J and longitudinal producing 172 J (P = 0.2). However, the CDE generated in the 60 seconds period was significantly different, with a magnitude of 61 for longitudinal compared to 24 for torsional (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Significantly more energy was generated using torsional ultrasound than longitudinal at the tip level of the tip. CDE did not appear to accurately reflect these differences. This suggests that other factors should be considered when evaluating CDE and surgical outcomes.

Indexed as

calorimetryCumulative dissipated energylongitudinal ultrasoundphacoemulsificationtorsional ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39434832
PMCPMC11492905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.