Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane
2016
Overview
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).
Participants
Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation.
Methods
Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated.
Results
The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5
vs
6.2±2.7 min, respectively,
P
<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM–inner limiting membrane peeling (27G
vs
25G: 20.2±9.9
vs
16.1±9.3 min,
P
=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5
vs
6.2±2.7 min, respectively,
P
<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7
vs
17.2; IOP: 8.8
vs
9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30
vs
35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7
vs
8.6 weeks, respectively).
Conclusion
The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group
