Thermal effect of microburst and hyperpulse settings during sleeveless bimanual phacoemulsification with advanced power modulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess wound temperature during bimanual sleeveless phacoemulsification using customizable power modulations such as hyperpulse and microburst technology. SETTING: In vitro laboratory. METHODS: The Millennium Microsurgical System (Bausch & Lomb) with custom control software (CCS) was used to perform phacoemulsification in 5 porcine eyes with MicroFlow needles (Bausch & Lomb) and with power varied from 20% to 80% in 10% increments. Pulse modes were set for fixed microburst (4 ms on, 4 ms off; and 6 ms on, 12 or 24 ms off) and for hyperpulse (30% duty cycle with 8 or 75 pulses per second [pps]), with and without aspiration-line occlusion. Wound temperatures were measured 3 times per second. RESULTS: Using 80% total power, the wound temperature during 3 minutes of occlusion did not exceed 39.0 degrees C. The maximum temperature with fixed microbursts of 4 ms on, 4 ms off was 29.0 degrees C without occlusion and 37.8 degrees C with occlusion (duration 3 minutes). At 6 ms on, 12 ms off, the maximum temperatures were 28.1 degrees C and 38.7 degrees C, respectively. At 6 ms on, 24 ms off, peak temperatures were 24 degrees C and 23.6 degrees C, respectively. The hyperpulse mode of 30% duty cycle and 8 pps produced maximum temperatures of 25.5 degrees C nonoccluded and 33.4 degrees C occluded. With 30% duty cycle, 75 pps, temperatures were 28 degrees C and 38.0 degrees C, respectively. For all power below 80%, temperatures were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Customizable power modulation with microburst and hyperpulse technology further reduced wound temperatures during bimanual sleeveless phacoemulsification. This enhances the safety and effectiveness of phacoemulsification through a sleeveless needle and a small stab incision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".