This Pettey20191120readme.txt file was generated on [20191120] by [Aniket Ramshekar, Jeff Pettey and Susan Schulman] Links to Publication Field updated. 2021-12-09, SES ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Title of Dataset: Data from ‘Optimising tip diameter in phacoemulsification of varying lens sizes: an in vitro study’ 2. Author Information Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Jeff Pettey Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: Jeff.Pettey@hsc.utah.edu Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Aniket Ramshekar Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: Aniket.Ramshekar@hsc.utah.edu Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Joshua B. Heczko Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: jbheczko@gmail.com Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Ashlie A. Bernhisel Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: ashliebernhisel@gmail.com Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: William R. Barlow Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: William.Barlow@hsc.utah.edu Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Brian Zaugg Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: Brian.Zaugg @hsc.utah.edu Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Randall J. Olson Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: Randallj.Olson@hsc.utah.edu Alternate Contact Information Name: Brian Zaugg Institution: University of Utah Address: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, 65 Mario Capecchi Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132 Email: Brian.Zaugg @hsc.utah.edu 3. Date of data collection range 20180201 - 20180204 4. Geographic location of data collection (where was data collected?): Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: This study was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York, USA, to the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC BY NC – Allows others to use and share your data non-commercially and with attribution 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: Ramshekar A, Heczko J, Bernhisel A, Barlow Jnr W, Zaugg B, Olson R, Pettey J. Optimizing Tip Diameter in Phacoemulsification of Varying Lens Sizes: An in vitro Study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:4475-4484. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S333903 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: none 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: none 5. Was data derived from another source? no If yes, list source(s): 6. Recommended citation for the data: Aniket Ramshekar, Joshua B. Heczko Heczko, Ashlie A. Bernhisel, William R. Barlow, Brian Zaugg, Randall J. Olson, Jeff H. Pettey. 2019. Data for: Optimising tip diameter in phacoemulsification of varying lens sizes: an in vitro study. The Hive: University of Utah Research Data Repository. --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. Filename: phacoemulsification_ramshekar_2019.csv Short description: Time to phacoemulsification and chatter measurements using 2 mm and 3 mm lens cubes with the micropulse longitudinal and continuous transversal ultrasound modalities and various bore sizes 2. Relationship between files: na 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: none 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? no If yes, list versions: na Name of file that was updated: na i. Why was the file updated? na ii. When was the file updated? na Name of file that was updated: na i. Why was the file updated? na ii. When was the file updated? na -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Longitudinal utrasound (US) was set at 50% power, with a micropulse of 6 ms on-time cycle and 12 ms off-time cycle. Transversal US was set at 50% continuous power. Both US modalities had a 50 cm bottle height, 40 mL/min flow rate, and 550 mm Hg vacuum. In addition, both US modalities used the peristaltic pump setting. This setting allows independent control of aspiration and level as previously described. US and vacuum were always at their maximum setting (full pedal on). To draw meaningful conclusions between our two lens fragment models, we used the Ellips FX handpiece (Johnson & Johnson Vision), with tips that were similar to those used in our previous 2 mm porcine lens model studies. In this study, we used 19 G, 20 G, and 21 G tips with a 30-degree bevel for both US modalities. However, the tips used during the continuous transversal US modality had a 30-degree bend and tips used during the micropulse longitudinal US modality were straight with no curvature. Efficiency was defined as the number of seconds that US was used for lens fragment removal, and chatter was defined as the number of lens-fragment repulsions from the tip. Comparisons were consistent with previously described methods. One randomly selected lens cube was placed in a rubber chamber filled with BSS. The pedal was depressed, and once the lens fragment occluded the phaco tip, the pedal was fully depressed to initiate US. A stopwatch was used to record the time from US initiation to complete fragment removal. If the lens cube dislodged from the phaco tip at any time during the duration of US, then the stop watch was stopped and each dislodgement was counted as a chatter event. When the particle dislodged from the tip, the pedal was again depressed to vacuum until the particle was aspirated to the tip. Once the particle reoccluded the tip, the pedal was fully depressed to the US setting and the timer resumed. This allowed the chatter delay time to be distinct from the total particle removal time. na 2. Methods for processing the data: Efficiency times were averaged, and a standard deviation (SD) was calculated. Efficiency times that were more than 2 SDs from the mean were considered outliers and removed from the data set. Our rationale for excluding these data points is based on previous studies, in which we observed cases of microchatter that led to emulsification times which were sufficiently long that they skewed the results. Therefore, we removed these outlier data points from all analyses to optimally interpret the results of our experiments. The modified means and SDs were calculated, and a paired Student t test was used to compare the efficiency times between the different tip diameters for each US variation tested, with significance set at a P value of less than 0.05. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel. 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: As per 1 and 2. 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: As per 1 and 2. 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: As per 1. 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: The only quality assurance we performed was excluding data [sz1][SS2]more than 2 standard deviations away from the original average.  7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Aniket Ramshekar, Joshua B. Heczko Heczko, Ashlie A. Bernhisel, William R. Barlow, Brian Zaugg, Randall J. Olson, Jeff H. Pettey. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: [FILENAME] ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 5 2. Number of cases/rows: 240 3. Variable List A. Name: ultrasound modality Description: ultrasound modality type (micropulse longitudinal, continuous transversal) Value labels if appropriate na B. Name: lens cube mm Description: lens cube size [2 mm, 3 mm] Value labels if appropriate na C. Name: needle G Description: needle bore size [19 G, 20 G, 21 G] Value labels if appropriate na D. Name: removal times sec Description: number of seconds that ultrasound was used for lens fragment removal Value labels if appropriate na E. Name: chatter events Description: number of lens-fragment repulsions from the tip Value labels if appropriate na 4. Missing data codes: none Code/symbol Definition Code/symbol Definition 5. Specialized formats of other abbreviations used: none [sz1]Why? [SS2R1]I’ve highlighted the explanation in the first paragraph of #2. 5