Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in axial myopia

Hill, Darren; Sudhakar, Shruti; Hill, C.; King, Tonya S.; Scott, Ingrid U.; Ernst, Brett; Pantanelli, Seth

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.01.014

Cited by 54 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The percent of eyes with an expected residual spherical equivalent refraction within 0.5D was 93% using IA; this is higher than reported by Hill et al (80%)17 and Cionni et al (82%) 18. The mean absolute expected residual error difference between Preop and IA was 0.07D, similar to the value reported by Cionni et al18 The slightly higher number of eyes within 0.25D with the IA calculation appears to be a function of targeting emmetropia with IA relative to a least-minus target with the Preop calculation, evident in the slightly higher number of hyperopic outcomes with IA.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Davison and Potvin16 showed comparable outcomes when IA was used relative to preoperative calculations for sphere power, with a possible benefit to considering IA when the difference between the IA and preoperative power calculations was high. Hill et al17 noted that when selecting sphere lens power, IA resulted in 80% of the cases within 0.5D, better than all other methods tested. A recent retrospective study of 30,000 cases noted that IA resulted in 82% of the cases within 0.5D of residual spherical equivalent refraction, while preoperative calculations resulted in 76% of the cases within 0.5D; the difference was greater when the lens power was different 18…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<p>Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry</p>

Davison¹,

Makari²,

Potvin³

2019

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the value of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in determining toric intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with no previous ocular surgery. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective data review at one US clinical site of eyes that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation where standard preoperative and IA measurements were available. Calculated IOL sphere and cylinder powers and orientation were compared based on the measurement method and the postoperative refraction, using both actual and simulated (back-calculated) results. Comparisons were between the surgeon’s preoperative calculations, IA measurements, the actual IOL implanted and results from the Barrett toric calculator. Results: There was no significant difference ( p >0.7) in the number of eyes expected to have, or having, a spherical equivalent refraction within 0.50D of the target between Actual (92%), IA (93%) or Preoperative calculation results (86%). The percentage of eyes with expected residual refractive astigmatism ≤0.50D was significantly higher for the IA vs Preoperative calculations (75% vs 53%, p <0.01). There was no significant difference in expected results between the Actual, IA and Barrett toric calculations ( p >0.65). Conclusion: Modern IOL calculations for sphere produced results comparable to those achieved with IA. The value of IA in determining IOL cylinder power and orientation was more evident when comparing expected results between IA and a preoperative method based on measured total corneal astigmatism than when comparing to expected results from the Barrett toric calculator.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

<p>Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry</p>

Davison¹,

Makari²,

Potvin³

2019

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-25mm). 18 There were 38 eyes (39.2%) that had the same suggested IOL power whereas 74 eyes (76.3%) were within ±0.5D. From the Bland-Altman analysis the correlation between both devices was 98.50%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Comparison of IOL Power Calculated by Preoperative Biometry versus Intraoperative Wavefront Aberrometry in Thai Cataract Patients.

Khambhiphant

Thanyaporn

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As people now are expecting more precise and predictable results from cataract surgery. We need to find agreement between the calculated intraocular lens (IOL) power from using the SRK/T based preoperative biometry and the intraoperative wavefront aberrometry (ORA®) in Thai cataract patients. Methods: Eyes that underwent cataract surgery with monofocal or multifocal IOL implantation were enrolled in this prospective study. All eye biometry was measured preoperatively and the ORA intraoperatively. The SRK/T suggested IOL from the preoperative biometry was chosen in all cases. The suggested power and the estimated refraction (EST) from both devices were collected. Bland Altman analysis was used to find the agreement between them. The predicted EST of implanted IOL from both devices were compared with the one-month postoperative SE. Results: The study comprised 97 eyes (79 patients). Of these, 38 eyes (39.2%) had the same suggested IOL power, 36 eyes (37.1%) were within ±0.5D, 20 eyes (20.6%) were within ±1.0D and 3 eyes were beyond ±1.0D. Bland-Altman analysis found the mean difference between IOL power calculated from both devices was 0.39 with LoA of -0.54 to 1.31. The correlation was 98.50% (95%CI 98%- 99.10%). In the same suggested IOL power group, the median difference of EST by preoperative biometry and ORA compared with one-month postoperative SE were -0.08 (95%CI: -0.08, 1.11), and -0.14 (95%CI: -0.88, 1.2), respectively. Conclusions:The ORA and preoperative biometry results were in concordance with each other. The result of preoperative biometry was more accurate than ORA in this study.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the successful experience of QCC could be beneficial to the establishment of primary eye hospitals. With the current medical climate of precision medicine and personalized medicine 10 , 11 , 28 , there is no doubt that QCC should be considered as a promising approach to achieve a higher level of efficacy and precision in medical and research field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The final refractive results were finished by optometrists. Hence, every simple step during the process may cause errors, and unoptimized process will inevitably result in undesirable postoperative refractive outcomes 1 , 5 , 10 , 11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle

Lin

Xie

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is always a challenge in ophthalmology, and unoptimized process may lead to inaccurate refractive outcomes. Quality control circle (QCC) has shown its success in many fields as a process management tool. However, its efficacy in ophthalmology remains unclear. Here we utilized the QCC method to optimize the process and evaluate its efficacy in improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation. After the QCC application, the percentage of eyes with achieved refractive outcomes within 0.5 diopter significantly increased from 63.2% to 80.8% calculated by Haigis formula and 59.2% to 75.8% by SRK/T formula in patients with normal axial length (AL) (22 mm ≤ AL < 26 mm). Although there were no statistically significant differences in patients with long AL by the two formulas (p = 0.886 and 0.726), we achieved an accuracy of 75% with the application of the PhacoOptics software, which was significantly higher than that using the other two formulas (p < 0.001). Our findings indicated that QCC optimized and standardized the process of IOL power calculation, thus improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

show abstract

Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in axial myopia

Cited by 54 publications

References 16 publications

<p>Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry</p>

<p>Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry</p>

Comparison of IOL Power Calculated by Preoperative Biometry versus Intraoperative Wavefront Aberrometry in Thai Cataract Patients.

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About