Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2019
Intraoperative Aberrometry Versus Preoperative Biometry for IOL Power Selection After Radial Keratotomy: A Prospective Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curado Sebastião Xavier, Hida Wilson Takashi, Vilar César Martins Cortez, Ordones Virgílio Luiz, Chaves Mário Augusto Pereira, Tzelikis Patrick Frensel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) intraoperative aberrometry (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) with preoperative biometry in predicting residual refractive error after cataract surgery in eyes that underwent radial keratotomy.
METHODS: This was a prospective consecutive case series of patients with cataract and prior radial keratotomy. Each patient underwent a preoperative intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using partial coherence interferometry (IOLMaster version 5; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). For each eye, the Barrett True-K formula was used to select an IOL targeting emmetropia. Residual refractive error was predicted preoperatively using the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay formulas 1 and 2, and the ORA intraoperatively. Between 8 and 12 weeks after cataract extraction with IOL implantation, the postoperative refraction was compared with the preoperative and intraoperative predictions.
RESULTS: The study comprised 52 eyes of 34 patients. The median absolute errors associated with each method were as follows: Barrett True-K formula (0.34), ORA aberrometer (0.53), and SRK/T (0.54), Hoffer Q (0.51), Haigis (0.54), SRK/T (0.57), and Holladay formulas 1 and 2 (0.44) (P = .08). The proportion of patients within ±0.50 diopters of the predicted error was 63.5%, 48.1%, 44.2%, 48.1%, 53.8%, 36.5%, and 57.7%, respectively (P = .03). No statistically significant difference was observed in the number of eyes with hyperopic outcomes (P = .68).
CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with prior radial keratotomy surgery, the ORA aberrometer performance was similar to the Barrett True-K formula and all of the other established formulas, with no significant difference between median absolute error and mean absolute error. The Barrett True-K formula produced significantly more eyes within ±0.50 diopters than the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(10):656-661.].
METHODS: This was a prospective consecutive case series of patients with cataract and prior radial keratotomy. Each patient underwent a preoperative intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using partial coherence interferometry (IOLMaster version 5; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). For each eye, the Barrett True-K formula was used to select an IOL targeting emmetropia. Residual refractive error was predicted preoperatively using the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay formulas 1 and 2, and the ORA intraoperatively. Between 8 and 12 weeks after cataract extraction with IOL implantation, the postoperative refraction was compared with the preoperative and intraoperative predictions.
RESULTS: The study comprised 52 eyes of 34 patients. The median absolute errors associated with each method were as follows: Barrett True-K formula (0.34), ORA aberrometer (0.53), and SRK/T (0.54), Hoffer Q (0.51), Haigis (0.54), SRK/T (0.57), and Holladay formulas 1 and 2 (0.44) (P = .08). The proportion of patients within ±0.50 diopters of the predicted error was 63.5%, 48.1%, 44.2%, 48.1%, 53.8%, 36.5%, and 57.7%, respectively (P = .03). No statistically significant difference was observed in the number of eyes with hyperopic outcomes (P = .68).
CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with prior radial keratotomy surgery, the ORA aberrometer performance was similar to the Barrett True-K formula and all of the other established formulas, with no significant difference between median absolute error and mean absolute error. The Barrett True-K formula produced significantly more eyes within ±0.50 diopters than the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(10):656-661.].