• There is a clip that allows one to adjust the size of the pedal for both large and small feet.
• It has side “cushions” which hug the sides of the foot pedal. This allows for a very rapid sidewise swipe. This is intuitive and affords great safety as one can immediately generate a reflux in the suction tube. The movement is mainly of the heel swivelling and is comfortable as it does not involve the leg or knee moving.
• The movement is therefore  one of a “flick” pivoted on the ankle.
• The foot pedal is light and can be moved easily.

 
Disadvantages

• The Infiniti has a foot pedal which is attached to the machine with an electric cable. This cable sometimes gets in the way of the foot pedal if it is being moved around the floor.
• The foot pedal is on a plate which is held up with a spring. The spring and mount can get wet and it takes a little time to dry all the components.

• The foot pedal is wireless.
• There are no moving parts and any size foot can operate it.
• It is easy to clean.

 
Disadvantages

• It is heavy to move once placed on the floor.
• The sideways movements are very different. Instead of a quick flick of the ankle to initiate the reflux you have to swing the entire distal lower foot to the side.
• The sideways movement seems to involve the knee as well, and sometimes I feel that I am doing perineal strengthening exercises when I use the lateral and medial controls on the pedal.
• The foot pedal has a slope which can collect water while operating.

• The handpieces sits nicely in my hands and has little bumps on the handle that gives good tactile control.
• The irrigation port is large enough to stabilise the anterior chamber.
• The aspiration port is large enough to remove adherent cortex quickly and safely.
• Outer diameter of 0.8mm which fits snuggly through a 1.2 mm incision.
• The aspirator tip can be textured or polished.

 
Disadvantages

• Supply seems erratic.

• Corrugated handle that does not slip.
• Soft tip on the aspirator.
• Polycarbinate tip for capsular polishing.
• 23 G with an outer diameter of 0.6 mm so it can fit through a smaller 1mm incision.
• The handpiece is longer than that of the Alcon 0.3mm Polymer I/A or the Medicel Bi-Manual handpiece and feels more like a pencil in the hand.

 
Disadvantages

• The infusion has a sharp point. I think this dangerous.
• The aspiration has a much smaller diameter 0.3mm that the Ultraflow 0.5mm, I was used to. This slows down the aspiration of cortex and may lead to retained viscoelastic in the anterior chamber.
• For the life of me I cannot understand why a cataract surgeon would want a bimanual system that has a safe polymer tip on one instrument and a sharp point on the other.

• Fits nicely through a 1.2mm incision.
• Good anterior chamber control.
• Good purchase of cortex with a good size port.
• Slight roughening of the distal end of the instrument.
• Allows rapid removal of cortex through the aspiration port.

 
Disadvantages

• The handpiece does not have the “ridges” of the 0.3mm polymer I/A or the “bumps” of the Ultraflow bimanual handpiece. I am always concerned that if there is torque in the tubing while aspirating, then a smooth handle could contribute to the aspirator suddenly turning to relieve the tension in the tubing.