Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2016
Development of a program for toric intraocular lens calculation considering posterior corneal astigmatism, incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism, and effective lens position.
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.
Eom Youngsub, Ryu Dongok, Kim Dae Wook, Yang Seul Ki, Song Jong Suk, Kim Sug-Whan, Kim Hyo Myung
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation considering posterior corneal astigmatism, incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism, and effective lens position (ELP).
METHODS: Two thousand samples of corneal parameters with keratometric astigmatism ≥ 1.0 D were obtained using bootstrap methods. The probability distributions for incision-induced keratometric and posterior corneal astigmatisms, as well as ELP were estimated from the literature review. The predicted residual astigmatism error using method D with an IOL add power calculator (IAPC) was compared with those derived using methods A, B, and C through Monte-Carlo simulation. Method A considered the keratometric astigmatism and incision-induced keratometric astigmatism, method B considered posterior corneal astigmatism in addition to the A method, method C considered incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism in addition to the B method, and method D considered ELP in addition to the C method. To verify the IAPC used in this study, the predicted toric IOL cylinder power and its axis using the IAPC were compared with ray-tracing simulation results.
RESULTS: The median magnitude of the predicted residual astigmatism error using method D (0.25 diopters [D]) was smaller than that derived using methods A (0.42 D), B (0.38 D), and C (0.28 D) respectively. Linear regression analysis indicated that the predicted toric IOL cylinder power and its axis had excellent goodness-of-fit between the IAPC and ray-tracing simulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The IAPC is a simple but accurate method for predicting the toric IOL cylinder power and its axis considering posterior corneal astigmatism, incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism, and ELP.
METHODS: Two thousand samples of corneal parameters with keratometric astigmatism ≥ 1.0 D were obtained using bootstrap methods. The probability distributions for incision-induced keratometric and posterior corneal astigmatisms, as well as ELP were estimated from the literature review. The predicted residual astigmatism error using method D with an IOL add power calculator (IAPC) was compared with those derived using methods A, B, and C through Monte-Carlo simulation. Method A considered the keratometric astigmatism and incision-induced keratometric astigmatism, method B considered posterior corneal astigmatism in addition to the A method, method C considered incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism in addition to the B method, and method D considered ELP in addition to the C method. To verify the IAPC used in this study, the predicted toric IOL cylinder power and its axis using the IAPC were compared with ray-tracing simulation results.
RESULTS: The median magnitude of the predicted residual astigmatism error using method D (0.25 diopters [D]) was smaller than that derived using methods A (0.42 D), B (0.38 D), and C (0.28 D) respectively. Linear regression analysis indicated that the predicted toric IOL cylinder power and its axis had excellent goodness-of-fit between the IAPC and ray-tracing simulation.
CONCLUSIONS: The IAPC is a simple but accurate method for predicting the toric IOL cylinder power and its axis considering posterior corneal astigmatism, incision-induced posterior corneal astigmatism, and ELP.