Table 2.
Reported wash-out times for OVDs.
| Author (year) | OVDs | N (eyes) | Wash-out time for OVD (seconds) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean [SD] | |||
| Espindola (2012) | DisCoVisc | 39 | 10.2 [3.6] |
| 2% HPMC | 39 | 13.2 [5.4] | |
|
| |||
| Hutz (1996) | Methocel | 50 | Healon was the easiest and quickest to remove from the anterior chamber. Healon GV was also removed easily in a short time; however, in two patients very small particles of the iris pigment were mobilized by the Healon GV. Visco adhered to the intraocular structures and was difficult to remove from the eye; Methocel was difficult to remove from the corneal endothelium |
| Viscoat | 50 | ||
| Healon | 50 | ||
| Healon GV | 50 | ||
|
| |||
| Kim (2004) | Soft Shell (Viscoat + Hyal-2000) | 69 | Soft Shell technique enhances OVD removal at the conclusion of surgery |
| Viscoat | 64 | — | |
| Hyal-2000 | 64 | — | |
| Provisc | 55 | — | |
|
| |||
| Kohnen (1996) | Healon | 30 | No difference between the two groups with 20-second and 40-second wash-out times |
| Healon GV | 30 | ||
|
| |||
| Lee (2011) | Amvisc Plus | 31 | 50.42 [3.83] |
| Balanced salt Solution + Amvisc Plus | 31 | 8.29 [4.40] | |
|
| |||
| Miller (1999) | Healon GV | 70 | 19.8 [22.2] |
| Viscoat | 70 | 75 [16.8] | |
|
| |||
| Oshika (2004) | Healon5 | 78 | Healon was significantly easier to remove compared to Healon5 |
| Healon | 79 | ||
|
| |||
| Oshika (2010) | DisCoVisc | 154 | DisCoVisc showed significantly better performance than Healon5 in terms of removal |
| Healon5 | 163 | ||
|
| |||
| Rainer (2007) | NaHa 1% | 40 | Removal of NaHa 1% was easy and faster than 2% HPMC in bulk fashion |
| 2% HPMC | 40 | ||
|
| |||
| Vajpayee (2005) | Viscoat | 19 | 66.6 [11.2] |
| Healon GV | 19 | 45.1 [9.0] | |
| Healon5 | 18 | 55.47 [6.6] | |