Comment on: Experimental study comparing 2 different phacoemulsification systems with intraocular pressure control during steady-state flow and occlusion break surge events
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I would like to commend Fanney et al. for their recent article.”1 However, in this study, the authors compare the newest Zeiss Quatera 700 (Quatera) with the older generation, 10-year-old, Alcon CENTURION Vision System without Active Sentry (Centurion). Why compare with a technology that is no longer the gold standard of phacoemulsification surgery? Below are additional notable items. The same first author who worked on this manuscript demonstrated that the CENTURION Active Sentry (CAS), newest Alcon phacoemulsification platform, has significantly less surge volume when compared with Centurion, at the same single intraocular pressure (IOP) and vacuum shown in Figure 5 of the current study using the same eye model/method.2 Why did the authors choose not to discuss this study or provide surge volume data for other IOP set points and vacuum limits? In Figure 5, it seems that the surge duration time for Centurion was measured at a point where it has stabilized, whereas it has not fully stabilized for Quatera. In addition, CAS recovers significantly faster than Centurion.3 The authors discuss that high-flow rates, up to 90 mL/min, could provide greater time efficiency. Although this may be true for Quatera, this cannot be generalized for all systems. Using Centurion, there may be no gains in efficiency past 40 mL/min flow rate during the grooving step.4 High-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery, even for routine cases, may have potential downsides that warrants further investigation, but this was not discussed.5 IOP compensation for incision leakage is a feature that is available on Centurion but seems to not have been set up appropriately by the user before testing. In addition, IOP compensation for incision leakage is an automatic feature available with CAS. Selection of specific sizes for gauge and aspiration tubing has associated advantages and disadvantages. It is understandable that the authors used the gauge size available with each system. However, a smaller gauge size as was used with Quatera is known to help reduce surge but may also reduce efficiency. Similarly, although a larger aspiration tubing provides the benefit of a lower passive vacuum, as noted by the authors, it may also increase surge. Is there a reason that the authors did not at least note these points brought up here in the discussion of the paper for reader awareness of potential confounding factors? Overall, the addition of this body of evidence corroborates the importance of using surge to evaluate phacoemulsification equipment performance and adds valuable information regarding the newest Zeiss Quatera 700 System. The observations made above hopefully add a more complete picture that is of value to readers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,084 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,029 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,010 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».