scholarly journals Accuracy of partial coherence interferometry in patients with large inter-eye axial length difference

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246721
Author(s):  
Christine A. Petersen ◽  
Daniel C. Terveen ◽  
Tyler Quist ◽  
Parisa Taravati ◽  
Leona Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Error ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Partial Coherence ◽  
Partial Coherence Interferometry ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Axial Eye Length

Background To determine accuracy of partial coherence interferometry (PCI) in patients with large inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference. Methods Patients undergoing cataract surgery at two academic medical centers with an inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference of > 0.30 mm were identified and were matched to control patients without inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm on the basis of age, sex, and AEL. The expected post-operative refraction for the implanted IOL was calculated using SRK/T, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q formulae. The main outcome measures were the refractive prediction error and the equivalence of the refractive outcomes between the subjects and controls. Results Review of 2212 eyes from 1617 patients found 131 eyes of 93 patients which met inclusion criteria. These were matched to 131 control eyes of 115 patients. The mean AEL was 24.92 ± 1.50 mm. The mean absolute error (MAE) ranged from 0.47 D to 0.69 D, and was not statistically different between subjects and controls. The refractive prediction error was equivalent between the cases and controls, with no significant difference between the MAE for any formula, nor in the number of cases vs. controls with a refractive prediction error of at least 0.50 D or 1.00 D. Conclusions Among eyes in our study population, good-quality PCI data was equally accurate in patients with or without an inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm. Confirmatory AEL measurements using different AEL measuring modalities in patients with a large inter-eye AEL difference may not be necessary.

Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry

2020 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-316193
Author(s):  
Giacomo Savini ◽  
Marco Di Maita ◽  
Kenneth J Hoffer ◽  
Kristian Næser ◽  
Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Partial Coherence ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Partial Coherence Interferometry ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

Background/aimsTo compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery.MethodsIn this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated.ResultsTwo hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D.ConclusionAll investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.

scholarly journals Comparison of Optical Low-coherence Interferometry and Scheimpflug Imaging Combined with Partial Coherence Interferometry Biometers in Cataract Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moonjung Kim ◽  
Eui Seok Han
Keyword(s):  
Corneal Astigmatism ◽  
Partial Coherence ◽  
Partial Coherence Interferometry ◽  
Low Coherence ◽  
Low Coherence Interferometry ◽  
Scheimpflug Imaging ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Cataract Patients

Abstract Background: To evaluate the agreement between the biometers measured by optical low-coherence interferometry (OLCI, Aladdin) and those measured by Scheimpflug imaging combined with partial coherence interferometry (Scheimpflug-PCI, Pentacam AXL) in cataract patients.Methods: The axial length (AL), corneal power (keratometry, K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and corneal astigmatism were measured with the two devices in patients with cataracts. The difference and correlation were evaluated with a paired t-test (p) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), respectively.Results: One hundred sixty-four eyes of 95 patients were analyzed. The mean AL taken by OLCI was longer with excellent correlation (OLCI 23.25 mm, Scheimpflug-PCI 23.23 mm, p = < 0.0001, r = 0.9990). OLCI measured the ACD 0.08 mm shallower than Scheimpflug-PCI (p = 0.0003, r = 0.7386). The difference was statistically significant for flat K (p = 0.0428). The mean K and steep K were not significantly different. Vector analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of astigmatism and the oblique vector between the two devices (p = 0.1441 and p = 0.4147, respectively). Only the cardinal vector was different (p = 0.0087).Conclusions: Although OCLI and Scheimpflug-PCI showed strong correlations for AL, K, ACD, and corneal astigmatism in cataract patients, there were small but statistically significant differences in the AL, ACD, flat K, and cardinal vector. The two devices are not interchangeable for calculating intraocular lens power.

scholarly journals Intraocular lens power calculation for plus and minus lenses in high myopia using partial coherence interferometry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Fuest ◽  
Niklas Plange ◽  
David Kuerten ◽  
Hannah Schellhase ◽  
Babac A. E. Mazinani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Length ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Partial Coherence ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Partial Coherence Interferometry ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Hyperopic Shift ◽  
Lens Power ◽  
Lens Power Calculation

Abstract Purpose We assessed the accuracy of lens power calculation in highly myopic patients implanting plus and minus intraocular lenses (IOL). Methods We included 58 consecutive, myopic eyes with an axial length (AL) > 26.0 mm, undergoing phacoemulsification and IOL implantation following biometry using the IOLMaster 500. For lens power calculation, the Haigis formula was used in all cases. For comparison, refraction was back-calculated using the Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Holladay I, Hill-RBF (RBF) and SRK/T formulae. Results The mean axial length was 30.17 ± 2.67 mm. Barrett (80%), Haigis (87%) and RBF (82%) showed comparable numbers of IOLs within 1 diopter (D) of target refraction. Visual acuity (BSCVA) improved (p < 0.001) from 0.60 ± 0.35 to 0.29 ± 0.29 logMAR (> 28-days postsurgery). The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett 0.49 D, Haigis 0.38, RBF 0.44 and SRK/T 0.44 did not differ. The MedAE of Haigis was significantly smaller than Holladay (0.75 D; p = 0.01). All median postoperative refractive errors (MedRE) differed significantly with the exception of Haigis to SRK/T (p = 0.6): Barrett − 0.33 D, Haigis 0.25, Holladay 0.63, RBF 0.04 and SRK/T 0.13. Barrett, Haigis, Holladay and RBF showed a tendency for higher MedAEs in their minus compared to plus IOLs, which only reached significance for SRK/T (p = 0.001). Barrett (p < 0.001) and RBF (p = 0.04) showed myopic, SRK/T (p = 002) a hyperopic shift in their minus IOLs. Conclusions In highly myopic patients, the accuracies of Barrett, Haigis and RBF were comparable with a tendency for higher MedAEs in minus IOLs. Barrett and RBF showed myopic, SRK/T a hyperopic shift in their minus IOLs.

Validating the usefulness of sectorwise regression of visual field in the central 10°

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-317391
Author(s):  
Takashi Omoto ◽  
Hiroshi Murata ◽  
Yuri Fujino ◽  
Masato Matsuura ◽  
Takehiro Yamashita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Mean Absolute Error ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Open Angle ◽  
Clustering Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Test Points

AimTo evaluate the usefulness of the application of the clustering method to the trend analysis (sectorwise regression) in comparison with the pointwise linear regression (PLR).MethodsThis study included 153 eyes of 101 patients with open-angle glaucoma. With PLR, the total deviation (TD) values of the 10th visual field (VF) were predicted using the shorter VF sequences (from first 3 to 9) by extrapolating TD values against time in a pointwise manner. Then, 68 test points were stratified into 29 sectors. In each sector, the mean of TD values was calculated and allocated to all test points belonging to the sector. Subsequently, the TD values of the 10th VF were predicted by extrapolating the allocated TD value against time in a pointwise manner. Similar analyses were conducted to predict the 11th–16th VFs using the first 10 VFs.ResultsWhen predicting the 10th VF using the shorter sequences, the mean absolute error (MAE) values were significantly smaller in the sectorwise regression than in PLR. When predicting from the 11th and 16th VFs using the first 10 VFs, the MAE values were significantly larger in the sectorwise regression than in PLR when predicting the 11th VF; however, no significant difference was observed with other VF predictions.ConclusionAccurate prediction was achieved using the sectorwise regression, in particular when a small number of VFs were used in the prediction. The accuracy of the sectorwise regression was not hampered in longer follow-up compared with PLR.

Intraocular lenses optic power calculation with seven formulas in short eyes

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-61
Author(s):  
K.B. Pershin ◽  
◽  
N.F. Pashinova ◽  
I.A. Likh ◽  
А.Y. Tsygankov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Length ◽  
Mean Absolute Error ◽  
Optical Power ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Retrospective Comparison ◽  
Monofocal Iol ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Axial Eye Length

Purpose. The choice of the optimal formula for calculating the IOL optical power in patients with an axial eye length of less than 20 mm. Material and methods. A total of 78 patients (118 eyes) were included in the prospective study. 1st group included 30 patients (52 eyes) with short eyes (average axial eye length of 19.60±0.42 (18.54–20.0) mm), 2nd group consisted of 48 patients (66 eyes) with a axial length 22.75±0.46 (22.0–23.77) mm. Various monofocal IOL models were used. The average follow-up period was 13 months. IOL optical power was calculated using the SRK/T formula, retrospective comparison – according to the formulas Hoffer-Q, Holladay II, Olsen, Haigis, Barrett Universal II and Kane. Results. In 1st group, the mean absolute error was determined for the formulas Haigis, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Holladay II and Hoffer-Q (0.85, 0.78, 0.21, 0.17, 0.79, 0.73, 0.19 respectively). When comparing the formulas, significant differences were found for the formulas Hoffer-Q, Barrett Universal II and Kane in comparison with the formulas Haigis, Olsen, SRK/T and Holladay II (p<0.05) in all cases, respectively. In 2nd group, the mean absolute error was determined for the formulas Haigis, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Holladay II and Hoffer-Q (0.15, 0.16, 0.23, 0.10, 0.19, 0.23, 0,29 respectively). In 2nd group, there were no significant differences between the studied formulas (p>0.05). Conclusion. This paper presents an analysis of data on the effectiveness of seven formulas for calculating the IOL optical power in short (less than 20 mm) eyes in comparison with the normal axial length. The advantage of the Hoffer-Q, Barrett Universal II and Kane formulas over Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen, and SRK/T is shown. Key words: cataract, hypermetropia, short eyes, calculation of the IOL optical power.

Accuracy of common IOL power formulas in 611 eyes based on axial length and corneal power ranges

2020 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-315882
Author(s):  
Veronika Röggla ◽  
Achim Langenbucher ◽  
Christina Leydolt ◽  
Daniel Schartmüller ◽  
Luca Schwarzenbacher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Length ◽  
Prediction Error ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Corneal Power ◽  
Biometric Parameters ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Median Absolute Error ◽  
Axial Eye Length

AimsTo provide clinical guidance on the use of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas according to the biometric parameters.Methods611 eyes that underwent cataract surgery were retrospectively analysed in subgroups according to the axial length (AL) and corneal power (K). The predicted residual refractive error was calculated and compared to evaluate the accuracy of the following formulas: Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T. Furthermore, the percentages of eyes with ≤±0.25, ≤±0.5 and 1 dioptres (D) of the prediction error were recorded.ResultsThe Haigis formula showed the highest percentage of cases with ≤0.5 D in eyes with a short AL and steep K (90%), average AL and steep cornea (73.2%) but also in long eyes with a flat and average K (65% and 72.7%, respectively). The Hoffer Q formula delivered the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) in short eyes with an average K (0.30 D) and Holladay 1 in short eyes with a steep K (Holladay 1 0.24 D). SRK/T presented the highest percentage of cases with ≤0.5 D in average long eyes with a flat and average K (80.5% and 68.1%, respectively) and the lowest MedAE in long eyes with an average K (0.29 D).ConclusionOverall, the Haigis formula shows accurate results in most subgroups. However, attention must be paid to the axial eye length as well as the corneal power when choosing the appropriate formula to calculate an IOL power, especially in eyes with an unusual biometry.

Cataract surgery refractive outcomes: representative standards in a National Health Service setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerr Brogan ◽  
Charles J M Diaper ◽  
Alan P Rotchford
Keyword(s):  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
National Health ◽  
Postoperative Outcome ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
European Guidelines ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Service Setting ◽  
The Mean

Background/aimsTo report refractive outcomes from an National Health Service (NHS) cataract surgery service and assess if results meet suggested benchmark standard.MethodsDetails of all patients undergoing cataract surgery in the Southern General and New Victoria hospitals in Glasgow, UK, between November 2006 and December 2016 were prospectively entered into an electronic database. Patients were reviewed 4 weeks postoperatively in the eye clinic and underwent refraction at their local optometrist prior to this appointment. Surgically uncomplicated cases with in the bag’ non-toric intraocular lens implantation were included. Patients with previous laser refractive procedures or failing to achieve 6/12 acuity or better postoperatively were excluded. Proximity to targeted postoperative refraction was documented.ResultsOver this 10-year period, 11 083 eyes underwent cataract surgery. Of these, 8943 eyes of 6936 patients (80.69%) met the inclusion criteria and had both target and postoperative outcome refraction recorded. The mean difference between the targeted and outcome refraction was −0.07 D (SD 0.67). The mean absolute error was 0.50 D. Postoperative refraction was within 1 D of target refraction for 7938 eyes (88.76%) and within 0.50 D for 5577 eyes (62.36%).ConclusionRefractive outcomes following routine cataract surgery reported here are well within the targets recommended by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and European guidelines, but suggest that higher cataract refractive outcome benchmark standards may not yet be a realistic expectation for all NHS units with current biometry practice.

A study of manual toothbrushing skills in children aged 3 to 11 years

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Mentes ◽  
Julide Atukeren
Keyword(s):  
Age Groups ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Age And Gender ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Gender

The aim of the study was to evaluate toothbrushing management and ability of children in relation to age and gender. The study population consisted of 75 children and were divided into three equal groups as 3-5, 6-8 and 9-11 years of age.The grip type during toothbrushing was recorded on videotape.The most preferred grip types were distal (73%) followed by power (43%) and oblique grips (29%). There were a statistically significant differences between age groups and the grip types (p&lt;0.001) but no significant difference was seen between boys and girls in grip preferences (p&gt;0.05).The mean duration of toothbrushing was shorter in 3-5 years of age group (28 seconds) than the 6-8 and 9-11 age groups (35 and 47 seconds respectively).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document