Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to E Molyet.
This report deals with our evaluation of six phacoemulsification devices tested at the Neumann Eye Institute (two additional devices have been evaluated since this paper was presented at the ASCRS meeting). The devices were compared for operating cost of the first 1,000 cases, dependability, ease of usage, and level of safety for the patient.
This report extends a previous paper on the various characteristics of the most popular phacoemulsification devices. An evaluation of 11 devices by ten different manufacturers was attempted. Only five manufacturers of six devices agreed to critical evaluation or reevaluation. As in the previous report, the devices were compared for level of patient safety, dependability, efficiency, ease of usage, and operating cost for the first 1,000 cases. At the completion of this study, we ranked the nine devices evaluated over the past 17 months as follows: (1) United Surgical (Optikon) Systems Plus, (2) Optical Micro Systems (OMS), (3) United Surgical (Optikon) Phacotron, (4) CooperVision 10,000, (5) Site XTR, (6) CooperVision KCP, (7) CooperVision 9001, (8) Phakosystems CES 4000 and (9) United Sonics. To enhance the usefulness of this consumer's guide, we asked 40 experienced cataract surgeons what they wanted in the "ideal" phacoemulsification device. The opinions of 27 who responded are included.