Background/aimsTo compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery.MethodsIn this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated.ResultsTwo hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D.ConclusionAll investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.
AimsTo evaluate bilateral morphometric changes of corneal sub-basal nerve plexus (CSNP) occurring after unilateral cataract surgery by in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) images analysed with automated software.MethodsIVCM was performed before (V0) and 1 month after surgery (V1) in both operated eyes (OEs) and unoperated eyes (UEs) of 30 patients. Thirty age and sex-matched subjects acted as controls. Corneal nerve fibre density (CNFD), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD), corneal nerve fibre length (CNFL), corneal nerve total branch density (CTBD), corneal nerve fibre area (CNFA), corneal nerve fibre width, corneal nerve fractal dimension (CNFrD) and dendritic cells density were calculated.ResultsMean CNFD, CNBD, CNFL, CTBD, CNFA and CNFrD significantly decreased at V1 versus V0 in both eyes (respectively, 15.35±7.00 vs 21.21±6.56 n/mm2 in OEs and 20.11±6.69 vs 23.20±7.26 in UEs; 13.57±12.16 vs 26.79±16.91 n/mm2 in OEs and 24.28±14.88 vs 29.76±15.25 in UEs; 9.67±3.44 mm/mm2 vs 13.49±3.42 in OEs and 12.53±3.60 vs 14.02±3.82 in UEs; 22.81±18.77 vs 42.25±24.64 n/mm2 in OEs and 38.06±20.52 vs 43.93±22.27 in UEs; 0.0040±0.0021 vs 0.0058±0.0020 mm2/mm2 in OEs and 0.0049±0.0016 vs 0.0057±0.0019 in UEs; 1.418±0.058 vs 1.470±0.037 in OEs and 1.466±0.040 vs 1.477±0.036 in UEs; always p<0.049).ConclusionPatients undergoing cataract surgery exhibit bilateral alterations of CSNP. This finding could have broad implications in the setting of sequential cataract surgery.
Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that represents one of the most common ophthalmologic conditions encountered in everyday clinical practice. Traditional diagnostic tests for DED, such as subjective questionnaires, tear film break-up time and the Schirmer test, are often associated with poor reproducibility and reliability, which make the diagnosis, follow-up, and management of the disease challenging. New advances in imaging technologies enable objective and reproducible measurements of DED parameters, thus making the diagnosis a multimodal imaging-based process. The aim of this review is to summarize all the current and emerging diagnostic tools available for the diagnosis and monitoring of DED, such as non-invasive tear breakup time, thermography, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, meibography, interferometry, in vivo confocal microscopy, and optical quality assessment. Although there is not a gold standard imaging technique, new multi-imaging-integrated devices are precious instruments to help clinicians to better cope with the diagnostic complexity of DED.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.