Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2022
Toric Intraocular Lens Calculations With the Barrett Calculator: A Comparison of the Calculator With and Without the Integrated K Method.
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.
Reitblat Olga, Harel Gal, Zlatkin Rita, Bahar Irit, Sella Ruti
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Integrated K (IK) toric calculator with the standard Barrett toric calculator.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of a toric intraocular lens at the Rabin Medical Center, Israel, were reviewed. Errors in predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism were calculated for the Barrett toric calculator using biometry measurements only and with the IK tool using biometry and tomography. Both methods were assessed with predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PPCA and MPCA, respectively).
RESULTS: The study included 73 eyes of 59 patients. The mean centroid prediction error using PPCA (0.08 ± 0.80 D @ 78°) was significantly different compared with MPCA (0.07 ± 0.80 D @ 48°, P = .016). In addition, a significant difference between IK-PPCA (0.06 ± 0.80 D @ 80°) and IK-MPCA (0.05 ± 0.80 D @ 38°) was found (P = .023). The median absolute prediction error ranged from 0.55 D using IK-PPCA to 0.60 D using PPCA, with no significant differences between the four calculation versions. No significant differences were found between the calculators in the predictability rates within ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D. Analysis of one eye of each patient showed similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: The IK calculator yielded comparable outcomes to the standard Barrett calculator. Although differences in the mean centroid errors were found, they were clinically insignificant and predominantly seen in the axis of the predicted astigmatism error. These minor differences were mainly attributed to the incorporation of the MPCA in the calculation. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(9):565-571.].
METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of a toric intraocular lens at the Rabin Medical Center, Israel, were reviewed. Errors in predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism were calculated for the Barrett toric calculator using biometry measurements only and with the IK tool using biometry and tomography. Both methods were assessed with predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PPCA and MPCA, respectively).
RESULTS: The study included 73 eyes of 59 patients. The mean centroid prediction error using PPCA (0.08 ± 0.80 D @ 78°) was significantly different compared with MPCA (0.07 ± 0.80 D @ 48°, P = .016). In addition, a significant difference between IK-PPCA (0.06 ± 0.80 D @ 80°) and IK-MPCA (0.05 ± 0.80 D @ 38°) was found (P = .023). The median absolute prediction error ranged from 0.55 D using IK-PPCA to 0.60 D using PPCA, with no significant differences between the four calculation versions. No significant differences were found between the calculators in the predictability rates within ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D. Analysis of one eye of each patient showed similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: The IK calculator yielded comparable outcomes to the standard Barrett calculator. Although differences in the mean centroid errors were found, they were clinically insignificant and predominantly seen in the axis of the predicted astigmatism error. These minor differences were mainly attributed to the incorporation of the MPCA in the calculation. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(9):565-571.].