Fellow eye data for intraocular lens calculation in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Acta Ophthalmologica Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1111/aos.16741

Klemens Paul Kaiser, Julian Bucur, Tyll Jandewerth, Thomas Kohnen, Christoph Lwowski

{"title":"Fellow eye data for intraocular lens calculation in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.","authors":"Klemens Paul Kaiser, Julian Bucur, Tyll Jandewerth, Thomas Kohnen, Christoph Lwowski","doi":"10.1111/aos.16741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To evaluate whether the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of the fellow eye (FE) can be used in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.Methods: In this retrospective, consecutive case series, we enrolled patients who underwent combined phacovitrectomy with silicone oil removal and IOL implantation at the Goethe-University. Preoperative examinations included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss). We used the IOL calculation of the FE (FE group) to calculate the prediction error compared with the IOL calculation using only the axial length (AL) of the FE (AL-FE group), as well as using the AL of the operated eye (OE group) in addition to the measurable biometric parameters. IOL calculation was performed using the Barrett Universal II formula. We compared the mean (MAE) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) with each other. Furthermore, the number of eyes with ±0.50, ±1.00 and ±2.00 dioptres (D) deviation from the target refraction was compared.Results: In total, 79 eyes of 79 patients were included. MedAE was lowest in the OE group (0.41 D), followed by FE group (1.00 D) and AL-FE group (1.02 D). Comparison between the AL-FE and FE groups showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). Comparing eyes within ±0.50 D of the target refraction, the OE group (63.3%) performed best, followed by the AL-FE group (27.8%) and the FE group (26.6%).Conclusion: Our results indicate no clinically relevant difference between using the IOL calculation of the FE versus using only the AL of the FE in addition to the measurable parameters for the IOL calculation. A two-step procedure should always be strived for.","PeriodicalId":6915,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16741","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate whether the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of the fellow eye (FE) can be used in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.

Methods: In this retrospective, consecutive case series, we enrolled patients who underwent combined phacovitrectomy with silicone oil removal and IOL implantation at the Goethe-University. Preoperative examinations included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss). We used the IOL calculation of the FE (FE group) to calculate the prediction error compared with the IOL calculation using only the axial length (AL) of the FE (AL-FE group), as well as using the AL of the operated eye (OE group) in addition to the measurable biometric parameters. IOL calculation was performed using the Barrett Universal II formula. We compared the mean (MAE) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) with each other. Furthermore, the number of eyes with ±0.50, ±1.00 and ±2.00 dioptres (D) deviation from the target refraction was compared.

Results: In total, 79 eyes of 79 patients were included. MedAE was lowest in the OE group (0.41 D), followed by FE group (1.00 D) and AL-FE group (1.02 D). Comparison between the AL-FE and FE groups showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). Comparing eyes within ±0.50 D of the target refraction, the OE group (63.3%) performed best, followed by the AL-FE group (27.8%) and the FE group (26.6%).

Conclusion: Our results indicate no clinically relevant difference between using the IOL calculation of the FE versus using only the AL of the FE in addition to the measurable parameters for the IOL calculation. A two-step procedure should always be strived for.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

进行联合虹膜睫状体切除术时，用于计算眼内晶状体的同侧眼数据。

目的：评估同眼（FE）的眼内晶状体（IOL）计算是否可用于接受联合咽鼓管切除术的眼睛：在这项回顾性连续病例系列研究中，我们招募了在歌德大学接受联合咽鼓管切除术、硅油摘除术和人工晶体植入术的患者。术前检查包括生物测量（IOLMaster 700；卡尔蔡司）。我们使用 FE（FE 组）的 IOL 计算结果计算预测误差，并与仅使用 FE 轴长（AL）的 IOL 计算结果（AL-FE 组）以及除可测量的生物测量参数外还使用手术眼 AL 的 IOL 计算结果（OE 组）进行比较。人工晶体的计算采用巴雷特通用 II 公式。我们比较了平均值（MAE）和中位数绝对预测误差（MedAE）。此外，我们还比较了与目标屈光度有±0.50、±1.00和±2.00屈光度（D）偏差的眼睛数量：结果：共纳入了 79 名患者的 79 只眼睛。OE组的MedAE最低（0.41 D），其次是FE组（1.00 D）和AL-FE组（1.02 D）。AL-FE 组和 FE 组之间的比较没有统计学意义上的显著差异（P = 0.712）。比较目标屈光度在±0.50 D以内的眼睛，OE组（63.3%）表现最佳，其次是AL-FE组（27.8%）和FE组（26.6%）：我们的结果表明，使用 FE 的 IOL 计算与仅使用 FE 的 AL 以及可测量参数来计算 IOL 之间没有临床相关性差异。应始终坚持两步法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Acta Ophthalmologica 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

5.90%

发文量

433

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Acta Ophthalmologica is published on behalf of the Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation and is the official scientific publication of the following societies: The Danish Ophthalmological Society, The Finnish Ophthalmological Society, The Icelandic Ophthalmological Society, The Norwegian Ophthalmological Society and The Swedish Ophthalmological Society, and also the European Association for Vision and Eye Research (EVER). Acta Ophthalmologica publishes clinical and experimental original articles, reviews, editorials, educational photo essays (Diagnosis and Therapy in Ophthalmology), case reports and case series, letters to the editor and doctoral theses.