Acta ophthalmologica · 2014
Epidemiology and outcomes in refractive lens exchange surgery.
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.
Westin Oscar, Koskela Timo, Behndig Anders
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess demographics and refractive outcomes in patients undergoing refractive lens exchange surgery (RLE), with a population of cataract patients as a reference.
METHODS: A RLE cohort from a private eye clinic (n = 675) and a cataract cohort from the outcome registration of the Swedish National Cataract Register were studied and compared from an epidemiological perspective regarding age, gender, preoperative refraction and postoperative refractive outcome.
RESULTS: The RLE patients were younger (52.1 ± 7.7 versus 73.84 ± 9.32 years) with a smaller percentage of women (45.28% versus 60.46%; p < 0.001) and were more often myopic than the cataract patients. Astigmatism and hyperopia did not differ between the cohorts. Uncorrected visual acuity after RLE equalled the best corrected visual acuity in best cases after cataract surgery. The absolute biometry prediction was more accurate in RLE (0.17 ± 0.27 D versus 0.40 ± 0.58 D; p < 0.001), particularly in patients given a customized toric IOL (0.12 ± 0.27 D; p < 0.05). In cataracts, the Haigis' formula showed higher accuracy than the SRK/T formula (0.39 ± 0.53 D versus 0.43 ± 0.61 D; p < 0.01). Postoperatively after RLE, Laser Epithelial Keratomileusis was performed in 9.04% and Yttrium Aluminium Garnet capsulotomy in 7.41% of the eyes. Other reoperations were performed in three cases, and five postoperative retinal detachments occurred after RLE.
CONCLUSION: Compared with patients undergoing cataract surgery, we see many similarities, but also many interesting differences in patients undergoing RLE. Basic information about the growing population choosing to undergo RLE can help us plan future ophthalmic care.
METHODS: A RLE cohort from a private eye clinic (n = 675) and a cataract cohort from the outcome registration of the Swedish National Cataract Register were studied and compared from an epidemiological perspective regarding age, gender, preoperative refraction and postoperative refractive outcome.
RESULTS: The RLE patients were younger (52.1 ± 7.7 versus 73.84 ± 9.32 years) with a smaller percentage of women (45.28% versus 60.46%; p < 0.001) and were more often myopic than the cataract patients. Astigmatism and hyperopia did not differ between the cohorts. Uncorrected visual acuity after RLE equalled the best corrected visual acuity in best cases after cataract surgery. The absolute biometry prediction was more accurate in RLE (0.17 ± 0.27 D versus 0.40 ± 0.58 D; p < 0.001), particularly in patients given a customized toric IOL (0.12 ± 0.27 D; p < 0.05). In cataracts, the Haigis' formula showed higher accuracy than the SRK/T formula (0.39 ± 0.53 D versus 0.43 ± 0.61 D; p < 0.01). Postoperatively after RLE, Laser Epithelial Keratomileusis was performed in 9.04% and Yttrium Aluminium Garnet capsulotomy in 7.41% of the eyes. Other reoperations were performed in three cases, and five postoperative retinal detachments occurred after RLE.
CONCLUSION: Compared with patients undergoing cataract surgery, we see many similarities, but also many interesting differences in patients undergoing RLE. Basic information about the growing population choosing to undergo RLE can help us plan future ophthalmic care.