Repository logo

Browsing by Author "Gil, P"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Accuracy in Combined Phacovitrectomy: an 8-Formulas Comparison Study
    Publication . Hipólito-Fernandes, D; Luís, ME; Maleita, D; Gil, P; Maduro, V; Costa, L; Marques, N; Branco, J; Alves, N
    Background: Our study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane and PEARL-DGS) in patients submitted to combined phacovitrectomy for vitreomacular (VM) interface disorders. Methods: Retrospective chart review study including axial-length matched patients submitted to phacoemulsification alone (Group 1) and combined phacovitrectomy (Group 2). Using optimized constants in both groups, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. The optimised constants from Group 1 were also applied to patients of Group 2 - Group 3. Outcome measures included the mean prediction error (ME) and its standard deviation (SD), mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors, in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D. Results: A total of 220 eyes were included (Group 1: 100; Group 2: 120). In Group 1, the difference in formulas absolute error was significative (p = 0.005). The Kane Formula had the lowest MAE (0.306) and MedAE (0.264). In Group 2, Kane had the overall best performance, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0 and Barrett Universal II. The ME of all formulas in both Groups 1 and 2 were 0.000 (p = 0.934; p = 0.971, respectively). In Group 3, a statistically significant myopic shift was observed for each formula (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Surgeons must be careful regarding IOL power selection in phacovitrectomy considering the systematic myopic shift evidenced-constant optimization may help eliminating such error. Moreover, newly introduced formulas and calculation methods may help us achieving increasingly better refractive outcomes both in cataract surgery alone and phacovitrectomy.
    2021Journal article Open access Show more
  • A Rare Case of Todani Type-III Choledochal Cyst
    Publication . Lourenço, AL; Proença Caetano, A; Gil, P
    rare biliary tree disorders, which are divided in several subtypes according to Todani classification. Type III choledochal cyst is one of the rarest subtype. Symptoms are almost always associated with complications such as cholangitis or pancreatitis, usually due to biliary stasis, choledocholithiasis, recurrent infection or inflammatory events. This article describes a case of a patient who presented to the emergency department due to fever and abdominal pain, owing to Todani type III cystic obstruction with representative findings in the computed tomography study and endoscopic confirmation.
    2020Journal article Open access Show more
  • VRF-G, a New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula: A 13-Formulas Comparison Study
    Publication . Hipólito-Fernandes, D; Luís, ME; Gil, P; Maduro, V; Feijão, J; Yeo, T; Voytsekhivskyy, O; Alves, N
    Purpose: To compare the accuracy of a newly developed intraocular lens (IOL) power formula (VRF-G) with twelve existing formulas (Barret Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, Næeser 2, PEARL-DGS, SRK/T, T2 and VRF). Methods: Retrospective case series including 828 patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with the implantation of a single IOL model (SN60WF). Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the axial length (short ≤22.0mm; medium >22.0mm to <26.0mm; long ≥26.0mm). Main outcomes included mean prediction error (ME) mean (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE), in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D. Results: Formulas absolute errors were statistically different among them (p<0.001), with Kane having the lowest MAE of all formulas, followed by EVO 2.0 and VRF-G, which had the lowest MedAE. The Kane formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25D (47.0%) and ±1.00D (97.7%) and the VRF-G formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (79.5%). For all AL subgroups, Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas had the most accurate performances (lowest MAE). Conclusion: New generation formulas may help us in achieving better refractive results, lowering the variance in accuracy in extreme eyes - Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas are promising candidates to fulfil that goal.
    2020Journal article Open access Show more