Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Comparison of phacoemulsification ultrasonic power between the phaco‑chop and the divide-and-conquer techniques: a mini-systematic review

Eye volume 37, pages 3865–3868 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Divide and conquer (D&C) and phaco-chop are two popular techniques used in phacoemulsification. The latter is estimated to reduce phaco energy by up to one-third, making it desirable for denser nuclei [1]. No phaco machine offers a direct measure of energy delivered during phacoemulsification; instead relying on the platform’s calculations. Herein, we report a mini-systematic review to examine the comparative ultrasonic requirements for phaco-chop and D&Q techniques in standard-incision phacoemulsification.

Of the seven studies included three were published from Egypt [5,6,7], and the remaining studies were from the UK [8], Denmark [9], Turkey [10] and India [11]. In total, our review comprised a pool of 692 eyes. Sample sizes ranged between 30 and 120. The mean cataract grade ranged from N1.7 to N3.9 (LOCS) and 2.8–2.9 (emery scale). Where stated, five different phacoemulsification units were used.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

References

  1. Vasavada AR, Desai JP. Stop, chop, chop, and stuff. J. Cataract Refract Surg. 1996;22:526–9.

  2. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Petrisor BA, Keating J, Schemitsch E. Grading the evidence: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Injury. 2006;37:321–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J. Surg. 2003;73:712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. El-Sobky HM, Faried FM, Hassan MG. Phacoemulsification by using the quick-chop and the divide and conquer techniques: a prospective comparative study. Menoufia Med J. 2016;29:612–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El-Din Farahat HG, Badawy NM, Wagdy Faried FM, Ibrahim Mansour YH. Divide and conquer versus chopping in phacoemulsification: study of the operation events and early results. Menoufia Med J. 2016;29:627–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elnaby EA, El Zawahry OM, Abdelrahman AM, Ibrahim HE. Phaco prechop versus divide and conquer phacoemulsification: a prospective comparative interventional study. Middle East Afr. J. Ophthalmol. 2008;15:123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong T, Hingorani M, Lee V. Phacoemulsification time and power requirements in phaco chop and divide and conquer nucleofractis techniques. J. Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:1374–8.

  9. Storr-Paulsen A, Norregaard JC, Ahmed S, Storr-Paulsen T, Pedersen TH. Endothelial cell damage after cataract surgery: divide-and-conquer versus phaco-chop technique. J. Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:996–1000.

  10. Yiğit K. Comparison of phaco-chop and divide and conquer methods in grade 3-4 cataract patients. Ophthalmol Res. 2019;10:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Prasad M, Daigavane V. A comparative study of central corneal thickness and endothelial cell density after phacoemulsification by ‘Phaco-chop’ and ‘Divide and Conquer’ techniques. J. Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14:NC05–14.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sun YX, Cao R, Liu ZY, Xia HQ, Cen YJ, Gao L, et al. Comparisons of the energy efficiency and intraocular safety of two torsional phacoemulsification tips. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22:392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, UK

    Osman Younus & David Lockington

Authors
  1. Osman Younus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Lockington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OY performed manuscript screening, data extraction and analyses, protocol design and manuscript preparation. DL contributed and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osman Younus.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Younus, O., Lockington, D. Comparison of phacoemulsification ultrasonic power between the phaco‑chop and the divide-and-conquer techniques: a mini-systematic review. Eye 37, 3865–3868 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02616-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02616-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links