EyeWorld Asia-Pacific March 2016 Issue

42 EWAP Cataract/IOL March 2016 1 day postop toric intraocular lens with clear corneal incision Source: Mitchell Gossman, MD by Mitchell Gossman, MD How are we constructing our clear cornea incisions? C ontinuing the discussion of clear cornea incisions from the October 2015 issue of EyeWorld , I wondered, how are we creating our clear cornea incisions? What instruments are we using? What construction method and width do we use? How are we securing them? Our goals are legion: • A secure incision to eliminate leaks and reduce incidence of endophthalmitis and postoperative difficulties • Efficient speed of making the incision • Efficient speed of sealing the incision • Low cost per case • An incision size that creates a pleasing surgical experience with minimal fluid egress through the incision, minimal astigmatism effects, and allowing easy instrument entry and manipulation A survey was performed of 99 practicing ophthalmologists who volunteered to participate from the ranks of participants of the eyeCONNECTIONS online community and volunteers around the U.S. Responses are anonymous in order to encourage candor. The first question was, “What is your preferred instrument to make a clear corneal incision in most cases and why?” Steel keratome 71% Diamond keratome 24% Femtosecond laser 5% Among the recurring comments: • Difficulty persuading the hospital or ASC to purchase diamonds • Better “feel” with steel • Better and consistent sharpness with diamond • Prefer sapphire with equivalent sharpness at less cost than diamond • Lower cost for steel—although unclear if this refers to per-case cost including acquisition and maintenance costs (including outright breakage) or acquisition cost I use a steel keratome, specifically the Sharpoint 2.0–2.2 bevel-up angled blade. I used to prefer a diamond blade (Rhein Medical 3-D, St. Petersburg, Fla.) but switched to steel due to my own documentation of per-case cost being higher with diamond along with my sense of better sharpness of steel than in years past. Another factor is the very high acquisition cost when trying to please multiple surgeons with their preferred diamond blades. Surprising even myself, I have come to prefer steel because of the enhanced “feel” of entering the cornea, possibly greater ease of Mitchell Gossman, MD sealing perhaps due to the rougher faces of the incision with steel, and zero or trivial cost of switching blade styles or widths. The second question was, “If steel or diamond blade, how do you construct your incision?” Single-plane 17% Single-pass beveled, e.g., parallel entry, tilt and continue “uphill,” and enter anterior chamber parallel 48% Self-beveling style diamond blade 7% Beveled incision with initial perpendicular groove 31% Are safety and speed mutually exclusive? Perhaps, and a majority evidently feel this to be so since to create an initial perpendicular groove or create a three-planed incision in one pass does take extra time. There is nothing simpler than the “in and out parallel to the iris” of a steel keratome or self-beveling style diamond blade (e.g., Rhein 3-D or the Accutome Trapezoid series, Malvern, Pa.). I prefer the speed of the single-plane method and, when combined with the “Wong way” supraincisional pocket (see below) along with the maximum length of opposing incision lips afforded by this method with endothelial pump sealing the longer incision, I think there is no compromise in the seal. Another consideration is the length of the incision. As we all know, too long means a tendency to compromise the view from corneal striae and too short