Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wlaz A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8463556 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula's accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.
| S-EPMC9572881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the newer formulae, the optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based intraocular lens (IOL) power formula (OCT formula) and the Barrett True-K formula (True-K), with the methods on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator in eyes with previous myopic LASIK/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).Prospective case series.A total of 104 eyes of 80 patients who had previous myopic LASIK/PRK and subsequent cataract surgery and IOL implantation.By using the actual refraction after cataract surgery as target refraction, predicted IOL power for each method was calculated. The IOL prediction error (PE) was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the power of the IOL implanted.Arithmetic IOL PEs, variances of mean arithmetic IOL PE, median refractive PE, and percent of eyes within 0.5 diopters (D) and 1.0 D of refractive PE.Optical coherence tomography produced smaller variance of IOL PE than did Wang-Koch-Maloney (WKM) and Shammas (P < 0.05). With the OCT, True-K No History, WKM, Shammas, Haigis-L, and Average of these 5 formulas, the median refractive PEs were 0.35 D, 0.42 D, 0.51 D, 0.48 D, 0.39 D, and 0.35 D, respectively, the percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of refractive PE were 68.3%, 58.7%, 50.0%, 52.9%, 55.8%, and 67.3%, respectively, and the percentage of eyes within 1.0 D of refractive PE were 92.3%, 90.4%, 86.9%, 88.5%, 90.4%, and 94.2%, respectively. The OCT formula had smaller refractive PE compared with the WKM and Shammas, and the Average approach produced significantly smaller refractive PE than all methods except OCT (all P < 0.05).The OCT and True-K No History are promising formulas. The ASCRS IOL calculator has been updated to include the OCT and Barrett True K formulas.Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Laser Refractive Surgery Based on Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT IOL); Identifier: NCT00532051; www.ClinicalTrials.gov.
| S-EPMC4658226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the effect of pupil dilation on ocular biometric parameters and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in schoolchildren using the Lenstar LS 900.MethodsOne hundred forty eyes of 140 healthy schoolchildren were included in the analysis. Axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous depth (AD), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), flat keratometry (K), steep K, astigmatism, white-to-white (WTW), and iris/pupil barycenter distance were measured, before and after pupil dilation. Anterior segment length (ASL) was defined as the sum of ACD and LT, and lens position (LP) was defined as ACD plus half of the LT. The relative lens position (RLP) was defined as LP divided by AL. IOL power was calculated using the eight formulas (Hill-RBF, Barrett, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay, Olsen, SRK II, and SRK/T) integrated in the Lenstar LS 900. Parameters before and after pupil dilation were compared.ResultsAL, AD, ACD, LT, ASL, LP, RLP, flat K, iris barycenter distance, pupil barycenter distance, and PD differed significantly after pupil dilation (P < 0.001 in all cases), as compared to before dilation. The Olsen formula demonstrated significant differences in the magnitude of astigmatism (P = 0.010) and IOL power (P = 0.003) after pupil dilation. Using the different formulas, 23.6-40.7% of participants had IOL power changes of more than 0.50 diopters, while 0.7-1.4% had IOL changes of more than 1.0 diopter after pupil dilation.ConclusionsDilated and undilated pupil size affected the Lenstar LS 900 measurement of some ocular biometric parameters, and pupil dilation led to IOL power changes exceeding 0.50 diopters with a high percentage (from 23.6% to 40.7%) in schoolchildren, which should be noticed in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6136745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe accuracy of using total keratometry (TK) value in recent IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes remained unknown.MethodsHighly myopic patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were prospectively enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At one month postoperatively, standard deviation (SD) of the prediction errors (PEs), mean and median absolute error (MedAE) of 103 highly myopic eyes were back-calculated and compared among ten formulas, including XGboost, RBF 3.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Cooke K6, Haigis, SRK/T, and Wang-Koch modifications of Haigis and SRK/T formulas, using either TK or standard keratometry (K) value.ResultsIn highly myopic eyes, despite good agreement between TK and K (P > 0.05), larger differences between the two were associated with smaller central corneal thickness (P < 0.05). As to the refractive errors, TK method showed no differences compared to K method. The XGBoost, RBF 3.0 and Kane ranked top three when considering SDs of PEs. Using TK value, the XGboost calculator was comparable with the RBF 3.0 formula (P > 0.05), which both presented smaller MedAEs than others (all P < 0.05). As for the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 0.75 D of PE, the XGBoost TK showed comparable percentages with the RBF 3.0 TK formula (74.76% vs. 66.99%, or 90.29% vs. 87.38%, P > 0.05), and statistically larger percentages than the other eight formulas (P < 0.05).ConclusionsHighly myopic eyes with thinner corneas tend to have larger differences between TK and K. The XGboost enhancement calculator and RBF 3.0 formula using TK showed the most promising outcomes in highly myopic eyes.
| S-EPMC9178866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review article attempts to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes. A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for articles published over the past 21 years, up to July 2021. The mean absolute error was compared by using weighted mean difference, whereas odds ratio was used for comparing the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.0 D of target refraction. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was analyzed by using Chi-square test and I2 test. Fifteen studies including 2,395 eyes and 11 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Full Monte method, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Super formula, SRK/T, and T2) were included. Although the mean absolute error (MAE) of Barrett Universal II was found to be the lowest, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the comparisons. The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett Universal II was the lowest (0.260). Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction, respectively. Yet their comparison with the rest of the formulae did not yield statistically significant results. Thus, to conclude, in the present meta-analysis, although lowest MAE and MedAE were found for Barrett Universal II and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction was found for Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF, respectively, none of the formulae was found to be statistically superior over the other in eyes with short axial length.
| S-EPMC9114558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes.MethodsWe searched the databases on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies published between Jan 1st, 2009 and Aug 11th, 2019. Primary outcomes were the percentages of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D.ResultsThe final meta-analysis included 16 studies using seven common methods (ASCRS average, Barrett True-K no history, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis-L, OCT formula, Shammas-PL, and Wang-Koch-Maloney). ASCRS average yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.009, 0.01, 0.008, respectively). Barrett True-K no history also yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.01, P < 0.0001, respectively), and a similar result was found when comparing OCT formula with Haigis-L and Shammas-PL (P = 0.03, P = 0.01, respectively).ConclusionThe ASCRS average or Barrett True-K no history should be used to calculate the intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery. The OCT formula if available, can also be a good alternative choice.
| S-EPMC7339492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes.MethodsFour databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myopic eyes were defined as an axial length more than 24.5 mm. There are 13 formulae to participate in the final comparison (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis for traditional formulae, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, T2, VRF, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, LSF for the new-generation formulae). The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D.ResultsA total of 2273 eyes in 15 studies were enrolled in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the new-generation formulae showed a relatively more accurate outcome in comparison with traditional formulae. The percentage of eyes with a predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D (± 1.0D) of Kane, EVO and LSF was higher than 80% (95%), which was only significantly different from Hoffer Q (all P < 0.05). Moreover, another two new-generation formulae, Barrett Universal II and Olsen, had higher percentages than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I and Haigis for eyes with predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D (all P < 0.05). In ± 0.5D group, Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.02), and Holladay I was better than EVO (P = 0.03) and LSF (P = 0.009), and Hoffer Q had a lower percentage than EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF and LSF (P = 0.007, 0.004, 0.002, 0.03, respectively). Barrett Universal II was better than T2 (P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparison.ConclusionThe new-generation formula is more accurate in intraocular lens power calculation for axial myopic eyes in comparison with the third- or fourth-generation formula.
| S-EPMC9971158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThough patients with nanophthalmos frequently endure decreased quality of vision with contact lenses or spectacles, refractive surgery is generally an inadequate alternative due to the associated high refractive error. A refractive lens exchange (RLE) is an alternative option but is technically challenging, requiring accuracy in biometry measurements and procedures.Case presentationThis case discusses a 27-year-old female with nanophthalmos (axial lengths 17.6 mm and 17.4 mm, right and left eyes, respectively) who underwent a femtosecond laser-assisted (FLA) RLE with simultaneous implantation of a monofocal and a Sulcoflex trifocal (Rayner, Britain) lens in each eye. Preoperative cycloplegic refraction was +11.50/-0.75 × 145 and +12.00/-1.00 × 35 in the RE and LE, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at distance and near in the RE and LE was 6/7.5 and J1, 6/8.5 and J2, respectively. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was >6/120 and >J14 for each eye. FLA RLE was performed in the RE, then in the LE 2 weeks later. In each eye, a monofocal (44.0 D, RE, and LE) and a Sulcoflex trifocal lens (both implants, Rayner, Britain) were implanted in one procedure. Distance and near UCVA measured 6 weeks post-op RE and 1-month post-op LE at 6/8.5 and J1 in the RE, 6/10 and J1 in the LE. The RE and LE refraction and BCVA were +0.50/-1.00 × 115, 6/7.5, and plano/-1.00 × 55, 6/8.5, respectively. The post-op outcomes were uneventful.ConclusionA single procedure concurrently implanting a monofocal and Sulcoflex trifocal intraocular lens in nanophthalmic eyes resulted in an excellent UCVA. This procedure can be considered esthetic and reconstructive as it significantly improves patient appearance and function.
| S-EPMC10861217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Granular corneal dystrophy type 2 (GCD2) is an autosomal dominant disease affecting vision. Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) is advantageous in removing vision-threatening corneal opacities and postponing keratoplasty; however, it potentially disturbs accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. The myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method with or without the central island has been reported; nevertheless, an optimal method has not yet been established. To compare the predictive accuracy of post-PTK IOL power calculations in GCD2, the retrospective data of 30 eyes from July 2017 to December 2020 were analyzed. All GCD2-affected eyes underwent post-PTK standard cataract surgery using the WaveLight EX500 platform (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) under a single surgeon. The mean prediction error (MPE) and absolute error (MAE) with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K, Haigis, and SRK/T by standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK), where possible, were analyzed. Barrett Universal II and SRK/T showed significantly superior MPE, and MAE compared with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method. TK was not significantly superior to K in the same formula. In conclusion, this study suggests that these biometries and formulas, especially Barrett Universal II and SRK/T, are potentially useful in IOL power calculation in GCD2 after PTK.
| S-EPMC9861484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a cataract surgery, the opacified crystalline lens is replaced by an artificial intraocular lens (IOL). To optimize the visual quality after surgery, the intraocular lens to be implanted must be selected preoperatively for every individual patient. Different generations of formulas have been proposed for selecting the intraocular lens dioptric power as a function of its estimated postoperative position. However, very few formulas include crystalline lens information, in most cases only one-dimensional. The present study proposes a new formula to preoperatively estimate the postoperative IOL position (ELP) based on information of the 3-dimensional full shape of the crystalline lens, obtained from quantitative eye anterior segment optical coherence tomography imaging. Real patients were measured before and after cataract surgery (IOL implantation). The IOL position and the postoperative refraction estimation errors were calculated by subtracting the preoperative estimations from the actual values measured after surgery. The proposed ELP formula produced lower estimation errors for both parameters -ELP and refraction- than the predictions obtained with standard state-of-the-art methods, and opens new avenues to the development of new generation IOL power calculation formulas that improve refractive and visual outcomes.
| S-EPMC6026180 | biostudies-literature