Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2023
Visual Outcomes of Cataract Surgery in Patients With Keratoconus Using Toric and Non-toric Lenses.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ling Jennifer Y M, Qiao Grace, Iovieno Alfonso, Yeung Sonia N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and outcomes of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery with toric and non-toric IOLs.
METHODS: This was a consecutive retrospective case series study including patients from the Cornea Service at the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, from 2000 to 2020. Keratoconus was diagnosed based on corneal topography and clinician opinion. Patients who underwent topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments implantation, or corneal transplant were excluded. The manifest spherical equivalent, prediction errors, and median absolute errors were calculated. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
RESULTS: There were 160 eyes from 101 patients; 136 eyes received non-toric lenses and 24 eyes received toric lenses. Most patients had mild disease (< 48.00 diopters [D]) when stratified by steep keratometry values. Patients with severe disease (> 53.00 D) were significantly more hyperopic following surgery (P < .05). The Barrett Universal II (0.26 D, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 0.4), Holladay 2 (0.31, IQR = 1.2), and SRK/T (0.42, IQR = 0.86) formulas had the lowest median absolute error. The postoperative prediction error following toric lens insertion was not significantly different than following non-toric lens insertion, and the mean absolute astigmatism was significantly reduced with toric lenses.
CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and SRK/T were the most accurate IOL power calculation formulas in patients with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. Hyperopic surprise was increased in severe keratoconus. Toric IOLs may be considered in patients with mild keratoconus. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):319-325.].
METHODS: This was a consecutive retrospective case series study including patients from the Cornea Service at the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, from 2000 to 2020. Keratoconus was diagnosed based on corneal topography and clinician opinion. Patients who underwent topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments implantation, or corneal transplant were excluded. The manifest spherical equivalent, prediction errors, and median absolute errors were calculated. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
RESULTS: There were 160 eyes from 101 patients; 136 eyes received non-toric lenses and 24 eyes received toric lenses. Most patients had mild disease (< 48.00 diopters [D]) when stratified by steep keratometry values. Patients with severe disease (> 53.00 D) were significantly more hyperopic following surgery (P < .05). The Barrett Universal II (0.26 D, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 0.4), Holladay 2 (0.31, IQR = 1.2), and SRK/T (0.42, IQR = 0.86) formulas had the lowest median absolute error. The postoperative prediction error following toric lens insertion was not significantly different than following non-toric lens insertion, and the mean absolute astigmatism was significantly reduced with toric lenses.
CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and SRK/T were the most accurate IOL power calculation formulas in patients with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. Hyperopic surprise was increased in severe keratoconus. Toric IOLs may be considered in patients with mild keratoconus. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):319-325.].