Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Body Composition Characteristics on the Functional Disability in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Research on Establishing Corneal Edema after Phacoemulsification Prediction Model Based on Variable Selection with Copula Entropy
Previous Article in Journal
Correlation of ENT Symptoms with Age, Sex, and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Titer in Plasma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Visual and Aberrometric Outcomes in Suture-Free Scleral Fixation: Three-Piece Lenses versus Carlevale Lenses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/jcm12020611
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of the Active-Fluidics System in Phacoemulsification: A Review

by
Yu Luo
1,2,
Guangcan Xu
2,
Hongyu Li
1,2,
Tianju Ma
2,
Zi Ye
2,* and
Zhaohui Li
1,2,*
1
Medical School of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Beijing 100853, China
2
Department of Ophthalmology, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(2), 611; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020611
Submission received: 18 December 2022 / Revised: 5 January 2023 / Accepted: 10 January 2023 / Published: 12 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cataract Surgery and Postoperative Care – Part II)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The fluidics system is an indispensable and primary component of phacoemulsification. Both the gravity-fluidics system and active-fluidics system are commonly used in practice. The irrigation pressure of the gravity-fluidics system is determined by the bottle height, which is relatively constant, while the active-fluidics system is paired with a cassette that contains pressure sensors to monitor intraocular pressure changes. The active-fluidics system allows surgeons to preset a target intraocular pressure value, and it replenishes the fluids proactively; thus, the intraocular pressure is consistently maintained near the target value. Under such circumstances, stable intraocular pressure and anterior chamber volume values could be acquired. Research on surgical safety, efficiency and results have reported several strengths of the active-fluidics system. It is also advantageous in some complicated cataract surgeries. However, the system is not widely used at present, mainly due to its low penetration rate and high equipment cost. Some of its updates such as the new Active Sentry handpiece showed potential superiority in laboratory studies recently, but there is still further research to be conducted. This article gives an overview of the mechanism and performance of the active-fluidics system, and it is expected to provide clues for future research.

1. Introduction

With the aging of people, cataracts have become a major eye disease that is inevitable and severely threatens one’s vision acuity [1]. To date, phacoemulsification (PKE) combined with intraocular lens implantation is still the preferred method for modern cataract surgery [2].
For successful PKE to be completed, the interplay of various systems in a phacoemulsifier is essential [2,3,4]. Among them, the fluidics system is crucial in maintaining the balance of fluid flow and adjusting the volume of the anterior chamber (AC). The evolution and development of the fluidics system coincided with the PKE technique. In as early as 1967, in the first coverage of PKE, a fluid flow device was integrated into the handpiece to flush the AC and cool the phaco tip [5]. Since then, the gravity-fluidics method has been widely used and has become an integral part of the fluidics system in the following decades [6].
More recently, the active-fluidics system (AFS) has come to the attention of ophthalmologists [7,8,9]. It is capable of maintaining intraoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) stability and by virtue of this feature has brought a certain degree of improvement in the safety, efficiency and outcomes of PKE. Here, we summarize and review the studies regarding the AFS in cataract surgery, hoping to better understand the features of this new technique and to provide clues for future research.

2. Two Different Fluidics Systems of PKE

Safe and effective fluid irrigation is a prerequisite for PKE, and the fluidics systems currently used in clinical practice include the gravity-fluidics system (GFS) and AFS.

2.1. GFS

The GFS is a conventional fluidics system in which the balanced salt solution (BSS) bottle is lifted high and hence possesses gravitational potential energy [10,11]. When the fluid flows into the eye, the irrigation pressure is determined by the height difference between the BSS bottle and the operated eye, that is, a higher bottle equals a higher irrigation pressure. By elevating or lowering the bottle height, the flow and speed of the irrigation could be altered. However, the rate of fluid aspiration is dynamic during PKE, and the relatively permanent irrigation rate in the GFS cannot replenish it in a timely manner, which renders inevitable fluctuating IOP during surgery. In this case, the surgeon needs to adjust the bottle height according to the AC depth [12,13]. For example, the bottle should be raised when the AC becomes shallow. This kind of modulation is delayed, detrimental to the surgical continuity, and requires the surgeon to have considerable experience. At the same time, fluctuating AC and IOP are prone to impair ocular tissues and retinal blood circulation, causing related complications [10,14].

2.2. AFS

2.2.1. Characteristics of AFS

Launched in 2013, the AFS allows surgeons to preset a target IOP value and utilizes a soft BSS bag, which is put into the phacoemulsifier as source of irrigation fluid [15,16]. It is paired with a cassette that contains pressure sensors monitoring IOP changes in real time. When the IOP drops below the pre-set pressure, two metal plates will automatically compress the BSS bag to increase irrigation pressure and flow rate [7,15]. Then, the intraocular fluid and AC volume will be rapidly compensated. Meanwhile, when the IOP is higher than the pre-set value, the decompression of plates allows for the regulation of IOP through a reverse process. Due to this flexible modulation, the irrigation fluid can be replenished promptly even in the case of variable aspiration rates, sustaining IOP at the set value and avoiding the detectable fluctuation of the AC volume [17].
At any time during the operation, the operator could reset the target IOP according to different conditions, and a fluent surgery is guaranteed [8,10].

2.2.2. The Influence of Different Settings

Recently, a series of experimental studies on porcine lenses have explored the results of different surgical settings on efficiency and chatter [18]. Efficiency is defined here as the time needed for lens removal, and chatter is defined as the number of lens fragment repulsions from the tip. Based on previous research which showed that the torsional ultrasound (US) mode has superiority over the longitudinal mode in PKE under the GFS, Jensen and colleagues tested it in the AFS [18,19]. By increasing the torsional power from 10% to 100%, the efficiency was linearly increased from 30% to 60% power and then reached a plateau, while the minimum chatter was observed at 60% power. Therefore, 60% torsional power was suggested as the optimized choice. Then, further studies evaluated the influence of continuous, micropulse and long-pulse torsional US on efficiency and chatter events separately [20,21]. However, neither micropulse or long-pulse US was proved to improve the efficiency.
There were also studies focused on longitudinal US in the AFS. Thomson et al. tested longitudinal US power at 40%, 70% and 100% with the torsional power at 0% and considered that 70% power was the most efficient setting among them [22]. After that, Bohner and colleagues conducted a similar experiment in which the torsional power was set at 100% [23]. A linear increase in efficiency was observed as the longitudinal power rose from 20% to 100%, and they recommended 60% longitudinal power as the preferred setting to increase efficiency and avoid chatter. When a comparative study was performed on human eyes, the 100% torsional mode was more efficient than the 60% longitudinal mode in the AFS, though the visual acuity and corneal injuries were comparable between them [24].
Other settings such as the flow rate and vacuum are also factors that affect the efficiency of PKE significantly. A flow rate of 40 mL/min was once determined to be more efficient than 20 mL/min and 60 mL/min [25]. Additionally, a high-vacuum setting of 600 mmHg was proved to be more efficient than 350 mmHg [12]. However, it is worth noting that the optimal choice may vary with different settings of US power, flow rate and vacuum values, and the above outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

3. Performance of AFS in PKE

Assessments of safety and efficiency were the most concerns in terms of the evaluation of a new system or the adjustment of the PKE setting preference by surgeons [21]. Research on the performance of the AFS has been accomplished in comparison with the GFS. Due to the heterogeneity between different studies, some dissenting voices exist. An overview of main studies comparing the AFS and GFS is presented in Table 1.

3.1. Safety

3.1.1. Anterior Chamber Stability

PKE is performed in the anterior segment of the eye, so a stable AC, which is closely associated with the IOP, is necessary. A proper AC volume can provide enough space for surgery, but a shallow or fluctuating AC could hamper the operation and make the cornea, iris and lens capsule vulnerable [12]. Only when the rates of irrigation and aspiration are balanced can the IOP remain constant, thus forming a gratified AC [7,17]. However, fixed irrigation pressure cannot accommodate the transient aspiration rate during PKE with the GFS, and the IOP tends to decrease with increases in aspiration rate, resulting in variants in the AC volume [10,16]. Nicoli and colleagues monitored IOP in an acrylic test chamber under varying flow conditions with the AFS. Their study showed that the IOP was consistently maintained near the target value when the aspiration rate varied in 15–60 cc/min [10]. Yesilirmak et al. also noticed similar advantages of the AFS in maintaining IOP and AC stability [13]. Flexible irrigation pressure could immediately compensate for variation in fluid flow, adapt quickly to fluctuations in aspiration rate and improve the safety.
Moreover, contrary to the GFS, the IOP in the AFS ascends smoothly at the onset of irrigation thanks to its capability of IOP ramping, which avoids the sudden deepening of AC [10,32]. Yet, quantitative indicators for evaluating the AC volume were absent until the spring eye model was developed [33]. Based on this model, several studies have evaluated aqueous volume losses in different conditions, which are shown in the next section.
Other factors such as the surgical technique used and the choice of handpiece also have an impact. Smaller incisions, needles and sleeves all facilitate protections against outflow. The newer Active Sentry handpiece, which incorporates a pressure sensor, allows for the more accurate, immediate sensing of IOP changes and faster responses to AC volume losses [34,35]. However, no clinical studies are available regarding upgrades on human eyes.

3.1.2. Intraoperative Adverse Events

Commonly occurring adverse events in PKE include occlusion break, posterior capsule (PC) rupture, suspensory ligament injury and so forth. Among them, occlusion break is most closely associated with the fluidics system. Occlusion occurs when the tip is blocked by lens fragments, the iris or a viscoelastic agent during aspiration, and the vacuum in the line and cassette would then rise rapidly [17]. Once the occlusion breaks, the abrupt aspiration of fluid from AC will follow, which is known as a surge. An occlusion break surge can lead to a sudden drop in the IOP, shallow or even collapsed AC, increased risk of PC rupture and accidental damages. It is the origin of many surgical accidents and is intimately associated with surgical safety.
To reduce surge when performing PKE with the GFS, the surgeon’s frequent coping strategy is to elevate the BSS bottle and counteract it with a high irrigation pressure. Studies reported that the amplitude of surge is linearly correlated with the bottle height. For every 60 cm elevation in bottle height, surge is reduced by approximately 40% [11]. However, it is not feasible to set the bottle unlimitedly higher. Meanwhile, a strength of the AFS is that replenishing the fluid in a timely and proactive manner minimizes IOP fluctuations [7,13]. The peristaltic pump system equipped in the AFS controls the fluid displacement or aspiration flow actively and generates vacuum passively [36]. Although the original control of irrigation by sensors at the pump did not allow for a proper increase in irrigation when no flow was detected during occlusion, a vacuum sensor in the phacoemulsifier remedied the defects. Moreover, the new Active Sentry handpiece is an additional surge mitigation feature, which dampens the surge volume demand once the onset of an occlusion break is detected by the pressure sensor [34]. A laboratory study using a transducer box reported that in the range of 200–600 mmHg vacuum settings, the surge in the AFS was smaller than that in the GFS [17]. The difference grew with the increment in vacuum value, and a higher irrigation pressure in the AFS also yielded a smaller surge.
Further laboratory studies that deployed the spring eye model provide more detailed data. Aravena and colleagues evaluated aqueous volume losses due to occlusion breaks at vacuum limits of 200–600 mmHg [36]. Among several commonly used fluidics systems, the AFS had the lowest surge volume and corresponding percent aqueous volume losses. This is certainly strong evidence of better AC stability in the AFS, and this strength is reinforced with the new handpiece. Laboratory studies reported that compared to either the GFS or the plain AFS, the surge volume significantly reduced with Active Sentry handpiece upgrades [34,37]. A subsequent study in rabbits measured the real-time, dynamic IOP fluctuations after occlusion break [35]. The results showed that the AFS combined with the Active Sentry handpiece could achieve lower IOP fluctuations and faster recovery to the target IOP. Yet, there remains a need for more evidence to verify its performance in human eyes.
Additionally, one retrospective study compared the efficacy between the AFS and the GFS in 286 eyes, which reported that the incidence of surges was significantly lower with the AFS than the GFS, and the incidence of PC rupture was lower as well, substantially increasing the safety of PKE [38].

3.1.3. Postoperative Complications

Despite the advances in cataract surgery technology, postoperative complications are inevitable, of which, corneal edema is the most frequent. Exposure to surgical lights, thermal injury from US energy, the collision of nuclear debris and the washout of irrigation fluid are all causes of corneal damage [39]. When the corneal endothelium is damaged, its unique “pump” function will become impaired, which would increase water content in the corneal stroma, lead to corneal edema and result in vision loss [40]. Studies have reported significantly less central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal edema in the early postoperative period after PKE with AFS compared with GFS [27,38,41]. This advantage of the AFS cannot be achieved without its ability to maintain stable AC and fluid flow [27,40]. The stable AC prevents accidental contact of the cornea with the tip and reduces potential intraocular tissue injuries. The stable fluid flow not only reduces the scouring effect of the turbulent flow on the cornea, but also avoids crashes of the nuclear debris. On top of this, the high surgical efficiency of AFS further reduces the damage from US energy.
The effect of PKE on retinal structure and function has also been the focus of recent research. Increases in retinal thickness (RT) and retinal vessel density (VD) after PKE have been observed, and such changes are closely related to surgical injuries, IOP changes and inflammatory reactions [30,31,42,43,44]. Comparisons between the AFS and GFS on this topic may reveal some potential mechanisms. Studies have reported significant increases in postoperative RT, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, and ganglion cell layer thickness in patients who underwent PKE with the GFS [9,42]. Their changes in RT lasted 3 months, but RT did not show significant changes in the AFS group. According to OCTA results, the peripapillary VD and retinal superficial VD increased significantly in the GFS group in the early postoperative period and only gradually plateaued at 90 days postoperatively, while the AFS group became stable at 30 days [9,43]. These differences may be attributed to the sudden increase in intraocular irrigation pressure and fluctuations in the IOP when performing surgery with the GFS, which can dampen the retina and optic nerve easily [14,16,45]. Meanwhile, in the AFS, there is no need to maintain AC stability by high irrigation pressure, and a stable controlled intraoperative IOP reduces arterial perfusion pressure variations. All these characteristics can reduce retinal structural damages of surgical origin and contribute to better outcomes.
No significant difference has been yet reported between the AFS and GFS in terms of other surgical complications. Randomized controlled studies reported no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events such as allergic conjunctivitis, ocular congestion, dry eye, and posterior vitreous detachment after PKE with each of the two fluidics systems, and none had other serious complications [7,29,31].

3.2. Efficiency

Surgical efficiency is an important aspect to evaluate the working performance of a fluidics system. Indicators for assessing efficiency include: cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), total aspiration time (TAT) and estimated fluid usage (EFU), etc. [7,26]. Jointly used in studies to evaluate efficiency from different perspectives, these parameters could be automatically calculated using software and presented in the panel of a phacoemulsifier. CDE, as the most important item, is the total amount of ultrasound energy consumed during nucleus removal [13,46]. Additionally, a small portion of the released energy can be absorbed by ocular tissues and converted into thermal energy, causing a temperature elevation while generating free radicals. Therefore, the efficient usage of CDE is of great importance, as it will reduce temperature increment, corneal endothelial cell (CEC) damage and inflammation in AC and facilitate early postoperative recovery [46].
Several studies reported that the least CDE, EFU and TAT were consumed when applying the AFS in similar nuclear grades [7,8,9,29]. However, the outcomes of different studies were not entirely consistent, with reports of CDE savings from the AFS ranging from 13.5% to 40% [7,27,29]. There were also reports of no significant difference in the comparison of CDE [31,47]. The reason behind this is that many factors affect the surgery efficiency, including the fluidics system, surgical techniques, needle tips, the vacuum value, and so on. Skilled surgeons can perform the surgery quickly while reducing the CDE and EFU consumption [48]. The balanced tip has also been proven to be more efficient than the Kelman tip [27,49]. Meanwhile, the setting of a high vacuum value is another important aspect in improving the efficiency [12,49].
Due to the high vacuum condition, not only the adsorption of the tip to the nucleus is enhanced but certain fragments can be directly aspirated, thus saving CDE and improving the efficiency [50]. However, owing to the risk of surges, the vacuum value in the GFS is limited. Meanwhile, the ability of the AFS to maintain AC and reduce surges allows the vacuum to be set higher while guaranteeing safety. A prospective clinical study reported a 26.2% reduction in CDE and 17.6% less time taken to emulsify half of the nucleus in the AFS at a high vacuum of 600 mmHg compared to 350 mmHg [12]. Along with the improved efficiency, no AC shallowing was observed in any of the 160 cases, suggesting better safety. All of the above indicates that the advantages of AFS can only be maximized with a combination of skilled surgeons, efficient needles and a high vacuum setting.

3.3. Effects

3.3.1. Visual Acuity

Several studies have compared the recovery of visual acuity after PKE with the AFS and GFS, confirming the superiority of the AFS in fostering early postoperative recovery. The postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) is one of the most important indicators to assess the outcome of cataract surgery, which is closely related to the patient’s primary visual functions and surgical injuries. Some clinical studies demonstrated that BCVA in the early postoperative period (1 day and 1 week) was better when PKE was performed with the AFS than with the GFS [31,47,51]. This advantage did not vanish until 1 month postoperatively [8,38,47]. The better results of early postoperative vision recovery with the AFS may be due to its high efficiency. With less CDE, the inflammatory response and corneal edema after surgery decrease, and they are sure to shorten the recovery period and enable better visual acuity.
In addition, the improvement of visual quality after PKE has also been paid more attention recently. A recent study reported less higher-order aberrations and higher modulation transfer function with the AFS, providing better postoperative visual quality [41]. Reduced visual quality manifestations such as glare and poor night vision caused by higher-order aberrations are associated with altered corneal morphology after cataract surgery. As it reduces corneal damages as well as the impact on visual quality, the AFS is quite valuable in the long run.

3.3.2. Patients’ Subjective Perceptions

To prevent the collapse of AC during PKE with the GFS, surgeons usually elevate the BSS bottle to increase the irrigation pressure and counteract surges [11]. Yet, this can cause discomfort such as eye distention and eye pain, and it is detrimental to patients’ cooperation [10,15]. In addition, a high IOP may induce ocular perfusion reduction and optic nerve damage, even increasing patients’ anxiety and worsening the surgical outcome [45,52]. The maintenance of AC stability and the ability to combat surges provided by AFS can improve surgical safety and efficiency and also allows for a low target IOP to be set (40–50 mmHg). If the target IOP is closer to the physiological status, patients’ discomfort can be greatly reduced and the surgery can be better coordinated [9,15,31].

4. AFS in Complicated Conditions

Admittedly, many cataract patients have comorbid ocular or systemic diseases. Theoretically, the strengths of the AFS in terms of surgical safety and efficiency can provide some benefits in complex cataract surgery. However, in different cases, the settings and results are varied.

4.1. Corneal Disorders Combined with Cataract

Cataract patients with coexisting keratopathy, such as Fuch’s endothelial dystrophy, age-related CECs dysfunction and keratoplasty history, are commonly found, especially in advanced hospitals. It is essential to obtain satisfactory vision acuity with a healthy, transparent cornea, but endothelial cell loss (ECL) associated with PKE injuries can range from 4% to 25% [53]. Accompanying that loss is the inability of the cornea to maintain its dehydrated state, which can lead to corneal edema and endothelial decompensation. During PKE, the US energy is the most vital and direct contributor to CEC damages [39]. Therefore, better efficiency and less CDE are goals to be pursued relentlessly.
Higher surgical efficiency as well as stable AC reduce the possibility and extent of CEC damages when the AFS is applied to PKE. A retrospective study reported that the incidence of corneal edema after PKE with the AFS was lower, and ECL at 1 month postoperatively was also significantly less than that in the GFS [38]. The results of another randomized controlled study demonstrated the continued loss of CECs at 6 months postoperatively [27]. However, fortunately, lesions of the cornea were less severe in patients who underwent the procedure with the AFS. The conclusions above indicate that the AFS has valuable applicability and a protective effect on CECs, especially for patients combined with corneal endothelial dysfunction or corneal transplantation history, whose CEC barrier function is weak and tolerance towards injury is poor [54,55,56]. However, how good these theoretical advantages actually are needs to be examined in further studies.
Diabetic keratopathy, as one of the ocular complications of diabetes, is characterized by impaired ECE function and corneal nerve alterations in the limbal area, resulting in delayed wound healing and low visual acuity [57]. Meanwhile, cataracts always occur early and progress rapidly in diabetic patients under the influence of hyperglycemia [57,58]. Recent studies showed that CECs of diabetes patients are vulnerable in PKE, particularly in those with poor glycemic control [56,59]. Severe ECL in diabetes may be correlated with CECs’ vulnerability and increased trauma from US energy [60]. Nonetheless, the strengths of the AFS in terms of efficiency and safety may offer a potential turnaround. Previous studies showed that cataracts combined with diabetes required more CDE and resulted in more corneal damages in PKE [60,61]. Meanwhile, a prospective clinical study reported similar surgical efficiency in patients with or without diabetes when PKE was performed with AFS [39]. Although the CCT was higher in the diabetic group 1 day postoperatively, the count of CECs 1 day and 1 month postoperatively did not differ significantly between the diabetics and nondiabetics. This definitely provides a new view on the use of the AFS in cataract patients with diabetes.

4.2. Cataracts in Short Eyes and Long Eyes

Eyes with short axial length (AL) are characterized by a shallow AC, narrow angle and thick lens. PKE in patients with short AL is very challenging because of their compacted anterior segment and limited space for maneuvers [62,63,64]. Maintaining a stable AC is crucial there, as a fluctuating IOP, especially a low IOP, greatly increases the risk of choroidal detachment, hemorrhage and PC rupture [15]. With the ability to respond quickly to IOP changes, the AFS provides a suitable operating space, reducing accidents and significantly augmenting safety. Chang et al. reported three cataract patients (five eyes in total) with short AL who successfully underwent PKE with AFS [15]. All patients experienced excellent stability of the AC volume and PC. Only one case (two eyes) was complicated by high IOP and macular edema.
In contrast, when the AL is more than 26 mm or the refraction is greater than −6.00D, this is called high myopia [65]. Cataract patients with high myopia always present with nuclear cataract and capsular bag relaxation [66,67]. The CECs of high myopia are less tolerant to surgical trauma and are liable to be impaired by US energy [68]. In addition, their vitreous gel is often liquefied, which provides less support and leads to fluctuations in the AC volume [65]. In this case, the application of AFS has obvious benefits. For one thing, it can reduce CDE and hence diminish the occurrence of corneal edema. For another, the optional low irrigation pressure minimizes patients’ dissatisfaction and is able to maintain a stable AC, which lessens traction on the zonule and prevents the migration of vitreous gel. However, no high-quality studies have been reported on such patients, which may be the subject of future works.

4.3. Cataract with Glaucoma or Vitrectomy

Apart from the anatomical characteristics of short eyes, glaucoma patients usually exhibit a combination of elevated IOP and optic nerve impairment. The defective optic nerve is less resilient to the ischemic and hypoxic environment caused by IOP fluctuations [14,42,69]. Studies showed that in cataract patients suffering from primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG), PKE with the AFS alleviated the inflammatory congestion of the optic disc, reduced retinal nerve fiber layer edema and offered great protection towards the optic nerve [70]. Moreover, patients with glaucoma require continuous monitoring of the IOP, whereas a postoperative corneal edema directly impacts the accuracy of IOP measurements. In cataract patients with PACG, the adoption of the AFS enabled less corneal edemas and more accurate IOP measurements in the early postoperative period [71]. These accomplishments are significant for identifying postoperative IOP control in glaucoma patients and assessing their conditions promptly.
Vitrectomy has become one of the treatments for many vitreoretinal diseases, whereas a cataract is the most frequent complication [72]. PKE in a vitrectomized eye is risky due to the lack of vitreous support, insufficient zonules and invisible tears of PC, which render it prone to AC fluctuation and PC hyperactivity [73]. Additionally, there is a tendency for reverse pupillary block to induce an abrupt deepening of AC. Should PKE be performed with the GFS, then the bottle height requires prompt reduction to re-establish the AC [74]. Meanwhile, in the AFS the IOP and AC are maintained better, avoiding deep AC and minimizing ocular pain associated with zonule pull. A retrospective study investigated the safety and efficacy of the AFS in cataract patients after vitrectomy [75]. The results showed that all included patients (32 eyes) had stable AC without significant surges. The relatively low target IOP settings (50–60 mmHg) avoided impacts on the fragile optic nerve from transient high IOP, and the high efficiency lessened corneal damages. Despite the small sample size of this study, the value of AFS in such patients was adequately demonstrated.

4.4. Cataract with Soft and Dense Nucleus

According to the Emery–Little classification, nuclear scleroses grade II or less are often referred to as “soft” cataracts, while nuclear scleroses grade III or higher are known as “hard” cataracts [76,77]. Both of them are quite challenging in PKE.
Conventional splitting techniques may not work in a soft nucleus given its fragile essence. Additionally, the nucleus can be chopped quickly, rendering PC liable to be aspirated and destroyed. Thus, maintaining the stability of AC is crucial, and this is where the high vacuum and low energy of the AFS fuel the success of PKE [40,78]. The high vacuum allows the nucleus to be sucked tightly and emulsified away from PC, reducing the risk of capsule rupture. Meanwhile, the nucleus leaves the capsule bag in closer proximity to the corneal endothelium, where a lower CDE contributes to less CEC damage. Davison recommended a surgical technique using an optimized “Slow Quadrant Removal” setting to reduce the aspiration pace and prevent PC aspiration in soft cataracts with the AFS [79]. However, conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety still need to be confirmed in high-quality studies. Additionally, a prospective study presented better efficiency in the AFS compared with the GFS [80]. It was a convincing demonstration of the high vacuum advantage and proof that the AFS could also improve surgical efficiency in soft cataracts.
Meanwhile, in cases of PKE with dense nuclei, emulsification requires higher energy consumption, takes a longer time and requires more irrigation fluids, leaving CECs susceptible to damages [81]. Moreover, since many patients are accompanied with weak zonule, attention should be paid to the stretching injury to the capsular bag [50]. Here, the AFS can maintain a stable AC, reduce the movement of the capsular bag owing to IOP fluctuations and minimize injuries to the zonule [12]. Simultaneously, its capability to efficiently exploit US energy and high vacuum alleviates postoperative corneal edema with better surgical results. It was demonstrated that in dense nuclear cataract patients, the AFS significantly improved surgical efficiency, reduced corneal edema, and achieved faster visual recovery [51]. The results from another prospective research also showed that PKE with the AFS resulted in a 28% reduction in CDE and significantly better BCVA than the GFS 1 month postoperatively in dense nuclear cataract patients [8]. In addition, the presence of a hard nucleus increases the risk of occlusion during surgery, while the resistance to surges in the AFS certainly further adds to the safety.

5. Summary and Future Directions

The launch of the AFS was an important milestone in the history of fluidics systems, which marked a new phase of active and controlled intraoperative fluid perfusion. The strengths of the AFS are mutually reinforcing: its ability to maintain AC stability allows for better lens fragments followability, which reduces invalid maneuvers and thus improves the efficiency [41]; the result of saving EFU and TAT cannot be achieved without the automatic regulation of fluid flow and pressure [7,27,29]; the reduction in CDE, EFU and TAT improves the efficiency and lessens injuries from US energy and hydrodynamic effects, contributing to faster vision recovery.
The AFS is a technical breakthrough on the basis of the GFS, which guarantees the success of many complex cataract surgeries. However, due to its newness, the system is not widely used, and the research is inadequate; hence, many of its theoretical advantages have not been proven. For example, the irrigation pressure in the AFS was reported to be linearly correlated with surgical efficiency in a laboratory study, and increasing irrigation pressure alone could improve efficiency significantly [16]. However, no reasonable range of IOP settings was recommend, and no clinical trial was conducted to validate them. Furthermore, whether the protection of retinal blood flow by the AFS can reduce the incidence of macular edema, especially in diabetic patients, remains to be verified.
It is worth mentioning that the AFS has also undergone a revolution. The upgraded Active Sentry handpiece, which detects IOP via sensors, enables the mitigation of a surge response faster. But studies with large cohorts and long follow ups are still badly needed. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is becoming popular, as it was reported to be more efficient [82]. This kind of strength has also been observed when both FLACS and conventional PKE were conducted with the AFS, and the balanced tip further enlarged it [82,83].
Currently, the utilization of the AFS is still limited in some regions for several reasons. First, there is a lack of clinical studies, leaving many potential strengths of it unexplored. Second, although the AFS has advantages in many complex cataract surgeries, it is not “one size fits all”. The AFS is available for PKE only but is not a substitute for extracapsular cataract extraction in some cases such as lens subluxation. Third, the superiority of the AFS is based on the experience and technique of surgeons, and there is a learning curve for the appropriate operation setting and skills [7,8,29]. In addition, the high cost of surgical consumables is an undeniable factor, especially in some developing countries [28]. At present, PKE with the GFS is still the mainstay in many regions, and it is well-qualified for most cataract surgeries. Despite the strengths of the AFS, the GFS can work wonders provided the operating team, including surgeons and assistants, understand the mechanism of it and use it properly.
The development and utilization of new devices is the certain consequence of technological progress. With thorough research on the clinical application of the AFS in the years ahead, its practical value will be further analyzed and reported. The future development and discussion of fluidics systems will become a hot spot and will certainly start a new chapter of cataract surgery.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.L. and Z.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, G.X. and H.L.; supervision, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the following grants: 1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 82070937 to Z.L. (2021–2024); 2. National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 81870640 to Z.L. (2019–2022); 3. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China, grant number 82101097 to Z.Y. (2022–2024); 4. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China, grant number 82000923 to Lixiong Gao (2021–2023), who had no role in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Chunyu Zhu for language editing and technical assistance. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments during the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators; Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: The Right to Sight: An analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob. Health 2021, 9, e144–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lundstrom, M.; Barry, P.; Henry, Y.; Rosen, P.; Stenevi, U. Evidence-based guidelines for cataract surgery: Guidelines based on data in the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery database. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2012, 38, 1086–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fishkind, W.J. The phaco machine: Analysing new technology. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2013, 24, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. De Silva, S.R.; Riaz, Y.; Evans, J.R. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens versus extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) with posterior chamber intraocular lens for age-related cataract. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, CD008812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kelman, C.D. Phaco-emulsification and aspiration. A new technique of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1967, 64, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hoffman, R.S.; Fine, I.H.; Packer, M. New phacoemulsification technology. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2005, 16, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Solomon, K.D.; Lorente, R.; Fanney, D.; Cionni, R.J. Clinical study using a new phacoemulsification system with surgical intraocular pressure control. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2016, 42, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Oh, L.J.; Nguyen, C.L.; Wong, E.; Wang, S.S.Y.; Francis, I.C. Prospective study of Centurion® versus Infiniti® phacoemulsification systems: Surgical and visual outcomes. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 10, 1698–1702. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhao, Y.; Wang, D.; Nie, L.; Yu, Y.; Zou, R.; Li, Z.; Xu, M.; Zhao, Y. Early changes in retinal microcirculation after uncomplicated cataract surgery using an active-fluidics system. Int. Ophthalmol. 2021, 41, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nicoli, C.M.; Dimalanta, R.; Miller, K.M. Experimental anterior chamber maintenance in active versus passive phacoemulsification fluidics systems. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2016, 42, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ward, M.S.; Georgescu, D.; Olson, R.J. Effect of bottle height and aspiration rate on postocclusion surge in Infiniti and Millennium peristaltic phacoemulsification machines. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2008, 34, 1400–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ting, D.S.J.; Rees, J.; Ng, J.Y.; Allen, D.; Steel, D.H.W. Effect of high-vacuum setting on phacoemulsification efficiency. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2017, 43, 1135–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Yesilirmak, N.; Diakonis, V.F.; Sise, A.; Waren, D.P.; Yoo, S.H.; Donaldson, K.E. Differences in energy expenditure for conventional and femtosecond-assisted cataract surgery using 2 different phacoemulsification systems. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2017, 43, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zhao, Y.-Y.; Chang, P.-J.; Yu, F.; Zhao, Y.-E. Retinal vessel diameter changes induced by transient high perfusion pressure. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 7, 602–607. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Chang, J.S.; Ng, J.C.; Chan, V.K.; Law, A.K. Cataract Surgery with a New Fluidics Control Phacoemulsification System in Nanophthalmic Eyes. Case Rep. Ophthalmol. 2016, 7, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jensen, J.D.; Boulter, T.; Lambert, N.G.; Zaugg, B.; Stagg, B.C.; Pettey, J.H.; Olson, R.J. Intraocular pressure study using monitored forced-infusion system phacoemulsification technology. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2016, 42, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sharif-Kashani, P.; Fanney, D.; Injev, V. Comparison of occlusion break responses and vacuum rise times of phacoemulsification systems. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014, 14, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Jensen, J.D.; Shi, D.S.; Robinson, M.S.; Kramer, G.D.; Zaugg, B.; Stagg, B.C.; Pettey, J.H.; Barlow, W.R., Jr.; Olson, R.J. Torsional power study using Centurion phacoemulsification technology. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2016, 44, 710–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Leon, P.; Umari, I.; Mangogna, A.; Zanei, A.; Tognetto, D. An evaluation of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of torsional mode versus longitudinal ultrasound mode phacoemulsification: A Meta-analysis. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2016, 9, 890–897. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kabbara, S.W.; Heczko, J.; Ta, B.; Bernhisel, A.; Barlow, W.; Zaugg, B.; Olson, R.J.; Pettey, J. Impact of torsional micropulse on phacoemulsification efficiency and chatter. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 54, 560–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kabbara, S.W.; Heczko, J.; Ta, B.; Bernhisel, A.; Barlow, W.; Zaugg, B.; Olson, R.J.; Pettey, J. Determining optimal ultrasound percent on time with long-pulse torsional phacoemulsification. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 54, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Thomson, R.S.; Bird, B.A.; Stutz, L.A.; Heczko, J.B.; Bernhisel, A.A.; Barlow, W.R.; Zaugg, B.; Olson, R.J.; Pettey, J.H. The effect of increasing power when grooving using phacoemulsification. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2019, 13, 611–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bohner, A.; Peterson, J.S.; Wright, A.J.; Mamalis, C.; Bernhisel, A.; Zaugg, B.; Barlow, W.R., Jr.; Olson, R.J.; Pettey, J.H. Effects on phacoemulsification efficiency and chatter at variable longitudinal ultrasound settings when combined with constant torsional energy. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2020, 46, 774–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dasgupta, S.; Mehra, R. Comparative studies between longitudinal and torsional modes in phacoemulsification, using active fluidics technology along with the intrepid balanced tip. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 66, 1417–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bird, B.A.; Thomson, R.S.; Stutz, L.A.; Heczko, J.B.; Bernhisel, A.A.; Barlow, W.R.; Zaugg, B.; Pettey, J.H.; Olson, R.J. Effect of increasing flow when grooving during phacoemulsification. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2018, 44, 623–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Chen, M.; Anderson, E.; Hill, G.; Chen, J.J.; Patrianakos, T. Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy between the Infiniti and Centurion phacoemulsification systems. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015, 9, 1367–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Malik, P.K.; Dewan, T.; Patidar, A.K.; Sain, E. Effect of IOP based infusion system with and without balanced phaco tip on cumulative dissipated energy and estimated fluid usage in comparison to gravity fed infusion in torsional phacoemulsification. Eye Vis. 2017, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Huang, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, C.; Ying, X.; Zou, H. Comparison of Recently Used Phacoemulsification Systems Using a Health Technology Assessment Method. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2017, 33, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gonzalez-Salinas, R.; Garza-Leon, M.; Saenz-de-Viteri, M.; Solis, S.J.; Gulias-Canizo, R.; Quiroz-Mercado, H. Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy delivered by active-fluidic pressure control phacoemulsification system versus gravity-fluidics. Int. Ophthalmol. 2018, 38, 1907–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, X.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, M.; Luo, Y. Dynamic changes in retinal vessel density observed by optical coherence tomography angiography after phacoemulsification: Active vs. gravity fluidics system. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2022, 85, 205–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luo, Y.; Li, H.; Chen, W.; Gao, Y.; Ma, T.; Ye, Z.; Li, Z. A prospective randomized clinical trial of active-fluidics versus gravity-fluidics system in phacoemulsification for age-related cataract (AGSPC). Ann. Med. 2022, 54, 1977–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khng, C.; Packer, M.; Fine, I.H.; Hoffman, R.S.; Moreira, F.B. Intraocular pressure during phacoemulsification. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2006, 32, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dyk, D.W.; Miller, K.M. Mechanical model of human eye compliance for volumetric occlusion break surge measurements. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2018, 44, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thorne, A.; Dyk, D.W.; Fanney, D.; Miller, K.M. Phacoemulsifier occlusion break surge volume reduction. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2018, 44, 1491–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vasavada, V.; Vasavada, A.R.; Vasavada, V.A.; Vasavada, S.A.; Bhojwani, D. Real-time dynamic changes in intraocular pressure after occlusion break: Comparing 2 phacoemulsification systems. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2021, 47, 1205–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Aravena, C.; Dyk, D.W.; Thorne, A.; Fanney, D.; Miller, K.M. Aqueous volume loss associated with occlusion break surge in phacoemulsifiers from 4 different manufacturers. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2018, 44, 884–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Miller, K.M.; Dyk, D.W.; Yalamanchili, S. Experimental study of occlusion break surge volume in 3 different phacoemulsification systems. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2021, 47, 1466–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wu, L.; Lin, T.; Chen, Y.; Yu, Y.; Liu, Y. Comparision on the efficacy between active control fluid flow and gravity fluid flow in phacoemulsification. Chin. J. Ocul. Traum. Occupat. Eye Dis. 2020, 42, 356–360. [Google Scholar]
  39. Khokhar, S.; Sen, S.; Dhull, C. Active-fluidics-based torsional phacoemulsification in diabetic eyes: A prospective interventional study. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 67, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sorrentino, F.S.; Matteini, S.; Imburgia, A.; Bonifazzi, C.; Sebastiani, A.; Parmeggiani, F. Torsional phacoemulsification: A pilot study to revise the "harm scale" evaluating the endothelial damage and the visual acuity after cataract surgery. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Liu, G.; Liu, J.; Wen, Y. Effect of gravity fluidic system and active control fluidic system on visual acuity recovery and visual quality after phacoemulsification of cataract. Anhui Med. Pharm. J. 2020, 24, 1134–1137. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhou, Y.; Zhou, M.; Wang, Y.; Ben, S.; Gao, M.; Zhang, S.; Liu, H.; Sun, X. Short-Term Changes in Retinal Vasculature and Layer Thickness after Phacoemulsification Surgery. Curr. Eye Res. 2020, 45, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jia, X.; Wei, Y.; Song, H. Optical coherence tomography angiography evaluation of the effects of phacoemulsification cataract surgery on macular hemodynamics in Chinese normal eyes. Int. Ophthalmol. 2021, 41, 4175–4185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liu, J.; Liu, Q.; Yu, H.; Xia, Y.; Zhang, H.; Geng, C.; Dong, L. Microvascular Changes in Macular Area After Phacoemulsification and Its Influencing Factors Assessed by Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2021, 17, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Mansukhani, S.A.; Chen, J.J.; Fairbanks, A.M.; Foster, R.C.; Erie, J.C.; Baratz, K.H.; Hodge, D.O.; Bhatti, M.T. A Population-Based Study of Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Following Cataract Surgery. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 222, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Uy, H.S.; Chan, P.S.; Gil-Cazorla, R.; Shah, S. Comparison of surgical parameters using different lens fragmentation patterns in eyes undergoing laser-assisted cataract surgery. Int. Ophthalmol. 2019, 39, 2459–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Wang, H.; Yue, Y. Effects of gravity fluid flow system and active control fluid flow system on cumulative dissipated energy in post-phacoemulsification vision revovery and corneal endothelium. Rec. Adv. Ophthalmol. 2019, 39, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chen, M.; Sweeney, H.W.; Luke, B.; Chen, M.; Brown, M. A retrospective randomized study to compare the energy delivered using CDE with different techniques and OZil settings by different surgeons in phacoemulsification. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2009, 3, 401–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Khokhar, S.; Aron, N.; Sen, S.; Pillay, G.; Agarwal, E. Effect of balanced phacoemulsification tip on the outcomes of torsional phacoemulsification using an active-fluidics system. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2017, 43, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, Y.; Xia, Y.; Zeng, M.; Liu, X.; Luo, L.; Chen, B.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y. Torsional ultrasound efficiency under different vacuum levels in different degrees of nuclear cataract. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2009, 35, 1941–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xie, J.; Xu, J.; Liu, M.; Li, J.; Li, F.; Liu, X. Application of active-fluidic pressure control phacoemulsification system in dense nuclear cataract. Acta Acad. Med. Mil. Tert. 2021, 43, 1389–1395. [Google Scholar]
  52. Obuchowska, I.; Konopinska, J. Fear and Anxiety Associated with Cataract Surgery Under Local Anesthesia in Adults: A Systematic Review. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mencucci, R.; Ponchietti, C.; Virgili, G.; Giansanti, F.; Menchini, U. Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: Microincision versus standard technique. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2006, 32, 1351–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Yamazoe, K.; Yamaguchi, T.; Hotta, K.; Satake, Y.; Konomi, K.; Den, S.; Shimazaki, J. Outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with a low corneal endothelial cell density. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2011, 37, 2130–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bourne, W.M. Biology of the corneal endothelium in health and disease. Eye 2003, 17, 912–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hugod, M.; Storr-Paulsen, A.; Norregaard, J.C.; Nicolini, J.; Larsen, A.B.; Thulesen, J. Corneal endothelial cell changes associated with cataract surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cornea 2011, 30, 749–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lutty, G.A. Effects of diabetes on the eye. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013, 54, ORSF81–ORSF87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Kelkar, A.; Kelkar, J.; Mehta, H.; Amoaku, W. Cataract surgery in diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 66, 1401–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shah, A.S.; Chen, S.H. Cataract surgery and diabetes. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2010, 21, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. He, X.; Diakonis, V.F.; Alavi, Y.; Yesilirmak, N.; Waren, D.; Donaldson, K. Endothelial Cell Loss in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Eyes After Cataract Surgery. Cornea 2017, 36, 948–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bui, A.D.; Sun, Z.; Wang, Y.; Huang, S.; Ryan, M.; Yu, Y.; Ying, G.-S.; Ramanathan, S.; Singh, K.; Yang, Y.; et al. Factors impacting cumulative dissipated energy levels and postoperative visual acuity outcome in cataract surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021, 21, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Carricondo, P.C.; Andrade, T.; Prasov, L.; Ayres, B.M.; Moroi, S.E. Nanophthalmos: A Review of the Clinical Spectrum and Genetics. J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 2018, 2735465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Rajendrababu, S.; Wijesinghe, H.K.; Uduman, M.S.; Kannan, N.B.; Mishra, C.; Prajna, L. A comparative study on endothelial cell loss in nanophthalmic eyes undergoing cataract surgery by phacoemulsification. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 69, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Day, A.C.; MacLaren, R.E.; Bunce, C.; Stevens, J.D.; Foster, P.J. Outcomes of phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in microphthalmos and nanophthalmos. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2013, 39, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhu, Y.; Shi, K.; Yao, K.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, S.; Xu, W.; Chen, P.; Yu, Y.; Shentu, X. Parameters of Capsulorrhexis and Intraocular Lens Decentration After Femtosecond and Manual Capsulotomies in High Myopic Patients with Cataracts. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 640269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Haarman, A.E.G.; Enthoven, C.A.; Tideman, J.W.L.; Tedja, M.S.; Verhoeven, V.J.M.; Klaver, C.C.W. The Complications of Myopia: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020, 61, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yao, Y.; Lu, Q.; Wei, L.; Cheng, K.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, X. Efficacy and complications of cataract surgery in high myopia. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2021, 47, 1473–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lin, Y.; Li, W.; Zhu, J.; Zhao, W.; Huang, L.; Bao, X. Effect of phacoemulsification on corneal endothelial cells in patients with axial high myopia and cataract. J. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2019, 27, 438–441. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tsui, J.L.; Chan, N.C.; Tham, C.C. The role of lens extraction in glaucoma management. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020, 8, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liu, L.; Zhao, G.; Wei, L.; Fang, J.; Shou, J.; Nie, L. Influence of active versus passive phacoemulsification fluidics systems on optic disc blood flow in patients with glaucoma. Yan Ke Xue Bao 2021, 36, 642–648. [Google Scholar]
  71. Xie, J.; Xu, J.; Liu, M.; Li, J.; Liu, X. Application of active-fluidic pressure control phacoemulsification system for primary angle-closure glaucoma with cataract: Reports of 24 cases. Acta Acad. Med. Mil. Tert. 2020, 42, 2141–2147. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mudie, L.I.; Patnaik, J.L.; Lynch, A.M.; Wise, R.E. Prior pars plana vitrectomy and its association with adverse intraoperative events during cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021, 100, e423–e429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Soliman, M.K.; Hardin, J.S.; Jawed, F.; Uwaydat, S.H.; Faramawi, M.F.; Chu, C.J.; Yang, Y.C.; Sallam, A.B. A Database Study of Visual Outcomes and Intraoperative Complications of Postvitrectomy Cataract Surgery. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, 1683–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Akinci, A.; Batman, C.; Zilelioglu, O. Cataract surgery in previously vitrectomized eyes. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2008, 62, 770–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, Q. Application of Centurion Vision System in cataracts after vitrectomy. Acta Univ. Med. Nanjing (Nat. Sci.) 2018, 38, 1749–1751. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chen, X.; Yu, Y.; Song, X.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, W.; Yao, K. Clinical outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification surgery for hard nuclear cataracts. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2017, 43, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lyu, D.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, L.; Qin, Z.; Ni, S.; Wang, W.; Zhu, Y.; Yao, K. Comparison of Perioperative Parameters in Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Using 3 Nuclear Fragmentation Patterns. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 213, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Harb, A.W.; Sadiq, S.N. Tilt-and-crush: A safe, effective and energy-saving technique for soft cataract removal. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 30, 1162–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Davison, J.A. Two-speed phacoemulsification for soft cataracts using optimized parameters and procedure step toolbar with the Centurion Vision System and Balanced Tip. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015, 9, 1563–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Zhu, K.; Wang, X.; Mu, H. Clinical study of Centurion active-fluidics configuration for phacoemulsification. Int. Eye Sci. 2019, 19, 1525–1527. [Google Scholar]
  81. Al-Khateeb, G.; Shajari, M.; Vunnava, K.; Petermann, K.; Kohnen, T. Impact of lens densitometry on phacoemulsification parameters and usage of ultrasound energy in femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 52, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Pahlitzsch, M.; Pahlitzsch, M.L.; Sumarni, U.; Pahlitzsch, T. Can we improve the efficacy of modern cataract surgery by using different tip designs? A comparison of balanced and tapered tip in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and manual phacoemulsification. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2018, 46, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Hida, W.T.; Tzelikis, P.F.; Vilar, C.; Chaves, M.; Motta, A.F.P.; Carricondo, P.C.; Ventura, B.V.; Ambrosio, R.J.; Nose, W.; Alves, M.R. Outcomes study between femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification surgery using an active fluidics system. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 11, 1735–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Overview of main studies comparing AFS and GFS.
Table 1. Overview of main studies comparing AFS and GFS.
AuthorStudy TypeSystemTipsParametersSampleAFS vs. GFS
Chen et al. [26]CohortAFS */GFS (Infiniti)Bal/KelCDE2077Less CDE
Solomon et al. [7]RCTAFS/GFS (Infiniti)Bal/KelCDE, AFU, AT200Improved surgical efficiency
Yesilirmak et al. [13]CohortAFS/GFS (Infiniti)/FLACS + AFS/FLACS + GFS (Infiniti)Bal/Kel/Bal/KelCDE 570Less CDE
Malik et al. [27]RCTGFS (Infiniti)/AFS/AFSKel/Kel/Bal/CDE, EFU, TAT, ECDCCT, CV, 6A126Improved surgical efficiency,
better corneal preservation
Oh et al. [8]CohortAFS/GFS (Infiniti)Bal/KelCDE, CDVA 412Less CDE, better CDVA
Huang et al. [28]CohortAFS/GFS (Infiniti)/GFS (WhiteStar Signature)/GFS (Stellaris Vision Enhancement systems)Bal/NA/NA/NACDE, surgery duration,
BCVA, AE		150Improved surgical efficacy,
less AE and highest cost
Gonzalez-Salinas et al. [29]CohortAFS/GFS (Infiniti)Bal/KelCDE, AFU, AT, ECD, CCT164Improved surgical efficiency
Zhao et al. [9]RCTAFS/GFS (Centurion)Bal/BalCDE, EFU, TAT, RVD,
MT		50Improved surgical efficiency,
less disturbance of RVD
and MT
Liu et al. [30]CohortAFS/GFS (Centurion)NAVD in peripapillary and parafoveal40Improved surgical efficiency
and retinal vasculature
protection
Luo et al. [31]RCTAFS/GFS (Centurion)Bal/BalCDE, EFU, TAT, ECD,
CCT, CV, 6A, IOP, BCVA, RVD, RT, AE et al.		107Improved surgical efficiency,
effects, safety and patients’
subjective perceptions
* All the AFS is used in Centurion. AE—adverse event, AFS—active-fluidics system, AFU—aspiration fluid used, AT—aspiration time, Bal—balanced, BCVA—best corrected visual acuity, CCT—central corneal thickness, CDE—cumulative dissipated energy, CDVA—corrected distance visual acuity, CV—coefficient of variance, ECD—endothelial cell density, EFU—estimated fluid usage, FLACS—femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery, GFS—gravity-fluidics system, IOP—intraocular pressure, Kel—Kelman, MT—macular thickness, RCT—randomized controlled trial, RT—retinal thickness, RVD—retinal vessel density, TAT—total aspiration time, 6A—percentage of hexagonal endothelial cells.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luo, Y.; Xu, G.; Li, H.; Ma, T.; Ye, Z.; Li, Z. Application of the Active-Fluidics System in Phacoemulsification: A Review. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020611

AMA Style

Luo Y, Xu G, Li H, Ma T, Ye Z, Li Z. Application of the Active-Fluidics System in Phacoemulsification: A Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(2):611. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020611

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luo, Yu, Guangcan Xu, Hongyu Li, Tianju Ma, Zi Ye, and Zhaohui Li. 2023. "Application of the Active-Fluidics System in Phacoemulsification: A Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 2: 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020611

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop