The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Ocuscan rxp

Manufactured by Alcon
Sourced in United States

The Ocuscan RxP is a lab equipment product designed for ophthalmic applications. It is a diagnostic device used to measure various parameters of the eye, including intraocular pressure, corneal thickness, and other relevant metrics. The Ocuscan RxP provides objective data to support clinical decision-making.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

7 protocols using ocuscan rxp

1

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurement Techniques

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The study was conducted on 75 participants between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2013. A pretested structured questionnaire was used to obtain demographic data and the clinical history or each patient. The ophthalmological examination, conducted by the primary investigator (C.O.), included a best corrected visual acuity evaluation, slit lamp, and IOP measurement using both the Tono-Pen AVIA (Reichert Technologies) and GAT. The Tono-Pen was calibrated weekly and the GAT was calibrated monthly by our biomedical technician. The GAT was used first and then, after 10 min (to allow recovery of the cornea), the Tono-Pen measurement was performed. All the measurements were made by the same examiner (C.O.) and in all patients the IOP measurements were made during the same period of the day (i.e. between 09.00 and 12.00 h). Two readings were taken with each instrument and the average of each was recorded. After the measurements the subject was asked which of the instruments they found more acceptable. The CCT was measured with an ultrasonic pachymeter (OcuScan RxP; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Tex., USA). Visual field defects were assessed using a visual field perimeter (Humphrey Matrix FDT; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Gonioscopy and slit lamp biomicroscopy of the fundus after papillary dilatation were performed subsequently.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Retrospective Analysis of Corneal Surgery

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The single corneal surgeon retrieved electronic medical records of all the patients who underwent the procedure at our tertiary eye hospital between 2008 and 2020 for retrospective analysis. The demographic data of the patients are shown in Table 1. The study was approved by the institutional review board (and was presented as a paper in the corneal surgery session 1 at the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) 2022 held in Milan), with due informed consent. All the patients underwent comprehensive ophthalmic examination preoperatively, which included slit-lamp biomicroscopy, Goldmann applanation tonometry (Tonopen or finger tension when needed), and indirect ophthalmoscopy (ultrasound B-scan for dense media haze), while ultrasound biomicroscopy was done to assess the lens or IOL positions, the status of capsular remnants, and the angle structures when needed. The axial length was measured using an A-scan ultrasound device (Alcon Ocuscan RXP) in most cases or IOL Master 700 when possible, keratometry was measured manually in most cases or a standard K of 44.0 D was used when not measurable, and for IOL power calculation, the Sanders-Retzlaff -Kraff Theoretical (SRK-T) formula was used in most cases and Barrette Universal II was used in some cases. The indications for surgery were as shown in Table 2.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Measuring Axial Length Changes After Surgery

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Axial lengths were measured bilaterally before surgery, one year after surgery, and two years after surgery. These measured values were analyzed collectively. Before surgery, axial lengths were measured using partial interferometry (IOL Master®, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) and remeasured using a contact ultrasound (Ocuscan RxP®, Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA) 2 min later. After surgery, axial lengths were only measured using partial interferometry. We analyzed the confidence of measurements by comparing the measured results of vitrectomized eyes and fellow eyes.
The IOL power was directed toward emmetropia, which was calculated using the SRK/T formula. The calculation was performed separately using partial interferometry and ultrasound. If the IOL powers measured using the two methods varied by ≥1 diopter (D), the axial lengths were <22 mm or >25 mm, or the bilateral axial lengths differed from each other by ≥0.33 mm, the measurements were repeated by other examiners, and then the results were confirmed.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Comparing PRGF and MMC Outcomes After PRK

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To compare the efficacy of PRGF and MMC after PRK surgery several outcome variables were collected, including the refractive efficacy through postoperative UDVA, the safety with the maintenance of post-surgical CDVA, predictability with postoperative MSE and stability with changes in MSE over time. The visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA) was measured with the Snellen optotype and transformed to LogMAR. Objective refractions, keratometries and pupillometries were measured with a Kerato/Refractometer KR-1W (Topcon, Barcelona, Spain). Central corneal thickness measurement was performed with ultrasonic pachymeter (DGH 5100 contact pachymeter, DHG Technology Inc, Exton, PA; OcuScan RXP, Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX). The ECD was analyzed in an automated way with a specular microscope (SP-1P, Topcon, Barcelona, Spain) before surgery and at the end of the follow-up. Any adverse events or complications showed along the patient follow-up period, were recorded to assess the safety of both treatments, including corneal haze (grade 0 to 4).[12 ]
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Normative Foveal Morphology: An OCT-Based Study

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
One hundred and fifty-one eyes of 151 subjects from the normative study data on the foveal morphology conducted at our hospital during the period of June 2012 and March 2013 were included in the study. The study was approved by institutional review board and was in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. The study population included the subjects who came for routine eye examination and volunteers. A written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before enrolling into the project.
All subjects underwent comprehensive eye examination and macular scanning using Cirrus high-definition OCT (Model 4000, Version 6, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) and AXL measurement using Ocuscan RxP (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., CA). All scans were performed by the same observer and care was taken to avoid obtaining decentered or tilted images. Subjects aged between 18 and 80 years having best corrected visual acuity of 20/30 or above, refractive error less than ± 3.00 DS, cylindrical error less than −2.00 DC were included in the study. Subjects with any retinal or optic nerve pathology and history of retinal surgery were excluded. OCT images with signal strength <6 out of 10 units and artifacts were excluded.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Comprehensive Preoperative and Postoperative Examination Protocol for Refractive Surgery

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The preoperative examination included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA); manifest refraction using the fogging method and cycloplegic refraction after 30 minutes of the instillation of two drops of cyclopentolate separated by 20 minutes; slit-lamp biomicroscopy; ultrasonic pachymetry (Ocuscan RxP; Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX); Goldmann tonometry; scotopic, low mesopic, and high mesopic pupillometry (Procyon Pupillometer P2000SA; Procyon Instruments Ltd., Stirling, United Kingdom); corneal topography (Eyetop; CSO, Firenze, Italy); and fundus evaluation. After surgery, patients were treated with a standard combination of tobramycin and dexamethasone (Tobradex; Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX) eye drops four times daily for 1 week. Postoperative examinations were at 1 day and 3, 6, and 12 months.
For statistical purposes, visual acuity was set on logMAR. An independent observer performed the examinations and collected the data.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Preoperative and Intraoperative Cataract Assessment

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Preoperative Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III) (10) grading was done using a slit lamp (Topcon, SL 1E) microscope after dilating the pupil with a combination of topical tropicamide 1.0% and phenylephrine 2.5%. Nuclear opacity was graded according to nu clear opalescence (NO) and nuclear color (NC) on a scale of 0.1 to 6.9 by the same ophthalmologist. Cataract was graded using the software on the Oculus Pentacam, the Pentacam Grading System (PNS), to measure the optical density of the nucleus.
Preoperative examinations included logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart, central corneal thickness (CCT) (Ocuscan Rxp, Alcon Laboratories), and endothelial cell count (ECC) (Konan Medical).
Intraoperative measurements included cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), phaco time, torsional time, aspiration time, case time, and the amount of balanced salt solution (BSS) used. The mean CDE is the mean percentage of power spent during US and is calculated in torsional mode (torsional amplitude x torsional time x 0.4). It was automatically calculated and displayed on the monitor of the phaco machine. The postoperative examination included CDVA, CCT, and ECC and was performed at 1 day and approximately at 3 months after the surgery.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!