Implantation of a trifocal IOL in highly myopic eyes with low IOL power (0.0 to 10.0 D) provided satisfactory short-term visual and refractive outcomes; however, results were not as good as those obtained in eyes with higher dioptric IOL power.

Das Mammakarzinom wird im allgemeinen als ein ausschließlich bei weiblichenPatienten auftretender Tumor wahrgenommen. Jedoch ist auch beim Mann rudimentäres Brustdrüsengewebe vorhanden, in welchem sich ein Karzinom entwickeln kann. Diese Entität macht etwa 1% aller Mammakarzinome aus. Die Inzidenz liegt laut Literaturdaten in der Bevölkerung unterhalb von 1 Neuerkrankung pro 100.0000 Männer pro Jahr. Mammakarzinome stellen 0,35-1,5% aller Krebserkrankungen beim Mann dar, im Gegensatz zu 23% bei der Frau [ 23]. Aufgrund dieser extremen Seltenheit liegen bis dato nur sehr wenige grundlegende Erkenntnisse über das Mammakarzinom bei männlichen Patienten vor. Die bisherigen Daten hinsichtlich krankheitsspezifischer Behandlung und Prognose sind nicht breit genug abgesichert, prospektive Therapiestudien fehlen sogar gänzlich [ 5, 6, 9]. Repetitorium Onkologe 2002 · 8:66-71

PURPOSE: To evaluate a ray-tracing formula for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of diffractive extended depth of focus IOLs after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) compared to formulas from an established online calculator. METHODS: This retrospective, consecutive case series included patients after cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (AT LARA, Carl Zeiss Meditec; Symfony, Johnson & Johnson) and a history of myopic LASIK. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster; Carl Zeiss Meditec) and corneal tomography, including true net power (TNP) (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). To evaluate the measurements, the simulated keratometry values (SimK) were compared to the TNP. Regarding IOL calculation, the mean prediction error, mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE and MedAE), and number of eyes within ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopters (D) from the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Barrett True K No History formulas to the Potvin-Hill and Haigis with TNP (Pentacam) formulas were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-six eyes matched the inclusion criteria with a mean spherical equivalent of −6.26 ± 3.25 diopters (D) preoperatively and −0.79 ± 0.75 D postoperatively. The mean difference from SimK and TNP was significantly different from zero ( P < .001; −1.24 ± 0.81 D). The best performing formulas by MedAE were the Potvin-Hill and Barrett True K No History (0.39 ± 0.78 and 0.64 ± 1.00 D). The formula with the most eyes within ±0.50 D was the Potvin-Hill (64%), followed by the Barrett True K No History (44%). For MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D, the Potvin-Hill formula was significantly better than the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Haigis-TNP formulas ( P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Calculation of IOLs in patients who had LASIK remains less predicable than calculations for virgin eyes. Using ray-tracing to calculate diffractive EDOF IOLs after myopic LASIK, the Potvin-Hill formula outperformed established formulas in terms of the percentage within target refraction and the MAE. [ J Refract Surg. 2021;37(4):231–239.]

Proprietary or commercial disclosures are listed after the references.