Limits...
A comparison of pop and chop to divide and conquer in resident cataract surgery

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

In this randomized prospective study, the cumulative dissipated energy and case time of pop and chop and of traditional four-quadrant divide and conquer in the first 60 cases (in total 120 eyes) of cataract surgery performed by two residents at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Hampton, Virginia, were compared. Overall and individually, the residents had significantly shorter case times and used significantly less cumulative dissipated energy for performing pop and chop than that for divide and conquer technique. There was no difference in complication rates or visual outcomes between these two techniques. The results of this study suggest that pop and chop is a more time- and energy-efficient method of nucleofractis than divide and conquer for novice resident surgeons.

No MeSH data available.


Average time per method for each surgeon and the total sample.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036651&req=5

f2-opth-10-1847: Average time per method for each surgeon and the total sample.

Mentions: Figure 2 shows the analysis of case time data of each surgeon separately and for the total samples included in this study. On average, case times for Surgeon 1 were 27.8 minutes (95% CI =24.9–31.0) for the divide and conquer method and 15.0 minutes (95% CI =13.4–16.7) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001). Case times for Surgeon 2 were 34.4 minutes (95% CI =30.0–39.4) for the divide and conquer method and 20.5 minutes (95% CI =17.9–23.5) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001). When the data of both the surgeons were combined together, the average case time was 31.1 minutes (95% CI =28.3–34.2) for the divide and conquer method and 17.8 minutes (95% CI =16.2–19.6) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001).


A comparison of pop and chop to divide and conquer in resident cataract surgery
Average time per method for each surgeon and the total sample.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036651&req=5

f2-opth-10-1847: Average time per method for each surgeon and the total sample.
Mentions: Figure 2 shows the analysis of case time data of each surgeon separately and for the total samples included in this study. On average, case times for Surgeon 1 were 27.8 minutes (95% CI =24.9–31.0) for the divide and conquer method and 15.0 minutes (95% CI =13.4–16.7) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001). Case times for Surgeon 2 were 34.4 minutes (95% CI =30.0–39.4) for the divide and conquer method and 20.5 minutes (95% CI =17.9–23.5) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001). When the data of both the surgeons were combined together, the average case time was 31.1 minutes (95% CI =28.3–34.2) for the divide and conquer method and 17.8 minutes (95% CI =16.2–19.6) for the pop and chop method; this difference was statistically significant (P⩽0.0001).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

In this randomized prospective study, the cumulative dissipated energy and case time of pop and chop and of traditional four-quadrant divide and conquer in the first 60 cases (in total 120 eyes) of cataract surgery performed by two residents at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Hampton, Virginia, were compared. Overall and individually, the residents had significantly shorter case times and used significantly less cumulative dissipated energy for performing pop and chop than that for divide and conquer technique. There was no difference in complication rates or visual outcomes between these two techniques. The results of this study suggest that pop and chop is a more time- and energy-efficient method of nucleofractis than divide and conquer for novice resident surgeons.

No MeSH data available.