Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Comparative evaluation of intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett's toric calculator in toric intraocular lens implantation.
Наблюдательное 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.
Mukhija Ritika, Vanathi Murugesan, Verma Meena, Raj Nimmy, Gupta Noopur, Tandon Radhika
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Barrett toric calculator (BTC) is known for its accuracy in toric IOL (tIOL) calculation over standard calculators; however, there is no study in literature to compare it with real-time intraoperative aberrometry (IA). The aim was to compare the accuracy of BTC and IA in predicting refractive outcomes in tIOL implantation.
METHODS: This was an institution-based prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification with tIOL implantation were enrolled. Biometry was obtained from Lenstar-LS 900 and IOL power calculated using online BTC; however, IOL was implanted as per IA (Optiwave Refractive Analysis, ORA, Alcon) recommendation. Postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) and spherical equivalent (SE) were recorded at one month, and respective prediction errors (PEs) were calculated using predicted refractive outcomes for both methods. The primary outcome measure was a comparison between mean PE with IA and BTC, and secondary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), postoperative RA, and SE at one month. SPSS Version-21 was used; P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Thirty eyes of 29 patients were included. Mean arithmetic and mean absolute PEs for RA were comparable between BTC (-0.70 ± 0.35D; 0.70 ± 0.34D) and IA (0.77 ± 0.32D; 0.80 ± 0.39D) (P = 0.09 and 0.09, respectively). Mean arithmetic PE for residual SE was significantly lower for BTC (-0.14 ± 0.32D) than IA (0.001 ± 0.33D) (-0.14 ± 0.32D; P = 0.002); however, there was no difference between respective mean absolute PEs (0.27 ± 0.21 D; 0.27 ± 0.18; P = 0.80). At one-month, mean UCDVA, RA, and SE were 0.09 ± 0.10D, -0.57 ± 0.26D, and -0.18 ± 0.27D, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Both IA and BTC give reliable and comparable refractive results for tIOL implantation.
METHODS: This was an institution-based prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification with tIOL implantation were enrolled. Biometry was obtained from Lenstar-LS 900 and IOL power calculated using online BTC; however, IOL was implanted as per IA (Optiwave Refractive Analysis, ORA, Alcon) recommendation. Postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) and spherical equivalent (SE) were recorded at one month, and respective prediction errors (PEs) were calculated using predicted refractive outcomes for both methods. The primary outcome measure was a comparison between mean PE with IA and BTC, and secondary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), postoperative RA, and SE at one month. SPSS Version-21 was used; P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Thirty eyes of 29 patients were included. Mean arithmetic and mean absolute PEs for RA were comparable between BTC (-0.70 ± 0.35D; 0.70 ± 0.34D) and IA (0.77 ± 0.32D; 0.80 ± 0.39D) (P = 0.09 and 0.09, respectively). Mean arithmetic PE for residual SE was significantly lower for BTC (-0.14 ± 0.32D) than IA (0.001 ± 0.33D) (-0.14 ± 0.32D; P = 0.002); however, there was no difference between respective mean absolute PEs (0.27 ± 0.21 D; 0.27 ± 0.18; P = 0.80). At one-month, mean UCDVA, RA, and SE were 0.09 ± 0.10D, -0.57 ± 0.26D, and -0.18 ± 0.27D, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Both IA and BTC give reliable and comparable refractive results for tIOL implantation.