Publication
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Accuracy in Combined Phacovitrectomy: an 8-Formulas Comparison Study
| dc.contributor.author | Hipólito-Fernandes, D | |
| dc.contributor.author | Luís, ME | |
| dc.contributor.author | Maleita, D | |
| dc.contributor.author | Gil, P | |
| dc.contributor.author | Maduro, V | |
| dc.contributor.author | Costa, L | |
| dc.contributor.author | Marques, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | Branco, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alves, N | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-10-18T14:50:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-10-18T14:50:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | Int J Retina Vitreous. 2021 Aug 18;7(1):47. | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s40942-021-00315-7. | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3883 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | BMC | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | HSAC OFT | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Vitreomacular Interface Disorders | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Phavocitrectomy | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Intraocular Lens Power | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Formulas Accuracy | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Accuracy in Combined Phacovitrectomy: an 8-Formulas Comparison Study | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 47 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | International Journal of Retina and Vitreous | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 7 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |