 |
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2019, vol. 25, issue4
Subject Area: Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019254.2733
Published online: 14 October 2019
Original article
J of IMAB. 2019 Oct-Dec;25(4):2733-2738;
EVALUATION OF THE KERATOMETRIC, BIOMETRIC DATA AND THE BIOMETRIC DEPENDENCIES AS RISK FACTORS OF REFRACTIVE ERROR IN IOL POWER CALCULATION
Gergana Popova1
, Latchezar Voynov2
1) Ophthalmology Department, UMHAT - Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
2) Clinic of Ophthalmology, Military Medical Academy - Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate the keratometric and biometric data and the biometric dependencies as risk factors of absolute refractive error (AE) in IOL power calculation of monofocal lenses in cataract patients using immersion ultrasound biometry (US-BM) and third generation formulas - SRK-T, Holl-1, Hoff-Q.
Methods: We present a retrospective, case-control study. Two hundred and fifteen eyes of 158 patients with cataract are included that underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with implantation of monofocal IOL. Automated keratometry (Potec - 700), immersion ultrasound biometry (US-BM) and third generation formulas-SRK-T, Holladay-1, Hoffer-Q were used. Correlation analysis was performed between ocular keratometry and biometry values and the absolute error.
Results: The predicted postoperative refraction (SE) in 137 eyes (63.7%) was successfully achieved with AE ± 0.50D. On the second visit after phacoemulsification (1-st month), 133 eyes (61.9%) had uncorrected distant visual acuity UCDVA ≥ 0.8.In our study was found that the keratometry procedure (KER) and surgically-induced astigmatism (SIA) were not sources of refractive error. Groups with larger relative shares of AE> ± 0.50D are with cylinder value prior to phacoemulsification (befCylD) > -0.75D, longer axial lenght (AL > 26.00 mm), shallower anterior chamber (ACD < 2.6 mm), smaller anterior segment (ACD + LT) <6.6 mm), smaller ratio of the anterior segment to the axial length (ACD+ LT / AL < 0.30). A methodology for estimating the expected AE has been proposed.
Conclusion: The expected AE can be predicted via two preoperative factors: befCylD and the ratio of the anterior segment to the axial length (ACD + LT)/AL.
Keywords: IOL power calculation, Refractive Error, Cataract, Immersion ultrasound biometry,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 665 KB/
Please cite this article as: Popova G, Voynov L. Evaluation of the keratometric, biometric data and the biometric dependencies as risk factors of refractive error in IOL power calculation. J of IMAB. 2019 Oct-Dec;25(4):2733-2738. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019254.2733
Correspondence to: Gergana Popova, Ophthalmology Department, University Medical Hospital of Active Treatment -Plovdiv, 234, Bulgaria blv., Plovdiv, Bulgaria; E-mail: gergana_popova@abv.bg
REFERENCES:
1. Sheard R. Optimising biometry for best outcomes in cataract surgery. Eye (Lond). 2014 Feb;28(2):118-25. [PubMed] [Crossref]
2. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007 Aug;85(5): 472-85. [PubMed] [Crossref]
3. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Mar; 34(3):368-76. [PubMed] [Crossref]
4. Cooke DL, Cooke TL. Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Aug; 42(8):1157-64. [PubMed] [Crossref]
5. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M. Benchmark standarts for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (Lond). 2009 Jan; 23(1):149-52. [PubMed] [Crossref]
6. The Royal College of Ophthalmologist Cataract Surgery Guidelines. 2010. 45p., 61p. [Internet]
7. Karabela Y, Eliacik M, Kocabora MS, Erdur SK, Baybora K. Predicting the refractive outcome and accuracy of IOL power calculation after phacoemulsification using the SRK/T formula with ultrasound biometry in medium axial lengths. Clinical Ophthalmology 2017 Jun; 2017(11):1143–1149. [PubMed] [Crossref]
8. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Preferred Practice Patterns. Cataract in the Adult Eye. October 2011. 15-16p. [Internet]
9. Yang J, Wang X, Zhang H, Pang Y, Wei RH. Clinical evaluation of surgery-induced astigmatism in cataract surgery using 2.2 mm or 1.8 mm clear corneal micro-incisions. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017; 10(1):68–71. [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Abdelghany A, Alio J. Surgical option for correction of refractive error following cataract surgery. Eye Vis (Lond). 2014; 1:2. [PubMed] [Crossref]
11. Khan MI, Muhtaseb M. Prevalence of corneal astigmatism in patients having routine cataract surgery at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Oct; 37(10):1751-5. [PubMed] [Crossref]
12. Chen W, Zuo C, Chen C, Su J, Luo L, Congdon N, Liu Y. Prevalence of corneal astigmatism before cataract surgery in Chinese patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Feb; 39(2):188-92. [PubMed] [Crossref]
13. McNeely RN, Moutari S, Pazo E, Moore JE. Investigating the impact of preoperative corneal astigmatism orientation on the postoperative spherical equivalent refraction following intraocular lens implantation. Eye Vis (Lond). 2018 Apr;5:7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
14. Li Y, Li HX, Liu YC, Guo YT, Gao JM, Wu B, et al. Comparison of immersion ultrasound and low coherence reflectometry for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun;11(6):966-969. [PubMed]
15. Lege BA, Haigis W. Laser interference biometry versus ultrasound biometry in certain clinical conditions. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004 Jan;242(1):8-12. [PubMed] [Crossref]
16. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, Heinzl H, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001 Jun;27(6):861–7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
17. Ladi JS. Prevention and correction of residual refractive errors after cataract surgery. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2017 Jul;5(1):45-50. [Crossref]
18. Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Rotenberg M, Kleinmann G, Levy A, Reitblat O, et. al. Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: Comparison of formulas and methods. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Mar;41(3):548-56. [PubMed] [Crossref]
19. Olsen T, Thim K, Corydon L. Accuracy of the newer generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long and short eyes. J Catarct Refract Surg. 1991 Mar;17(2):187-93 [PubMed] [Crossref]
20. Yang S, Whang WJ, Joo CK. Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula. PLoS One. 2017 Dec 18;12(12): e0189868. [PubMed] [Crossref]
21. Yunus K, Eliacik M, Kaya F. Performance of the SRK/T formula using A-Scan ultrasound biometry after phacoemulsification in eyes with short and long axial lengths, BMC Ophthalmology 2016 Jul 8;16:96. [PubMed] [Crossref]
22. Chen H, Lin H, Lin Z, Chen J, Chen W. Distribution of axial length, anterior chamber depth, and corneal curvature in an aged population in South China. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 May;16(1):47. [PubMed] [Crossref]
23. Jeong J, Song H, Lee JK, Chuck RS, Kwon JW. The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 May 2;17(1):62. [PubMed] [Crossref].
Received: 31 January 2019
Published online: 14 October 2019