Clinical Results After Precision Pulse Capsulotomy

Kjell G Gundersen ¹ , Richard Potvin ²
1 iFocus Øyeklinikk AS, Haugesund, Norway; 2 Science in Vision, Bend, OR, USA

This article was published in the following Dove Press journal: Clinical Ophthalmology

Purpose: To compare residual refractive error and complication rates between eyes undergoing a manual capsulotomy and those receiving a precision pulse capsulotomy using an automated device.

Patients and Methods: This study was a non-interventional two-arm retrospective chart review of clinical results after bilateral cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange (RLE) surgery with a monofocal toric intraocular lens (IOL) or a trifocal IOL where a manual capsulorhexis (Manual) or automated precision pulse capsulotomy (PPC) was performed.

Results: Exams from 243 eyes (122 PPC, 121 Manual) from 124 patients were reviewed;
about 75% of which had a trifocal IOL implanted. There was no statistically significant difference in the MRSE with either IOL type, or overall. The overall percentage of eyes with residual refractive cylinder ≤ 0.50 D was significantly higher in the PPC group (89% vs. 79% in the manual group, p = 0.03), primarily driven by results with the toric IOL. Best corrected distance visual acuity was not statistically significantly different by group. Capsulotomyrelated complications were lower in the PPC group relative to the manual group (4.1% vs.
6.6%), but this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.38).

Conclusion: Significantly more eyes had refractive cylinder ≤0.50 D in the PPC group. For all other measures, the automated PPC device produced clinical results equivalent to those achieved with a manual capsulorhexis.

Keywords: precision pulse capsulotomy, cataract surgery, capsulorhexis, capsulotomy