Percentage Of Eyes Research Articles

The effect of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 IOL power formulas

BackgroundThis study evaluates the impact of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 newer intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in cataract surgery. The aim is to assess how these formulas perform across different corneal curvature ranges, thereby guiding more precise IOL selection.MethodsIn this retrospective case series, 336 eyes from 336 patients who underwent cataract surgery were studied. The cohort was divided into three groups according to preoperative corneal power. Key metrics analyzed included mean prediction error (PE), standard deviation of PE (SD), mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.25 D, 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D and ± 2.00 D.ResultsIn the flat K group (Km < 43 D), VRF-G, Emmetropia Verifying Optical Version 2.0 (EVO2.0), Kane, and Hoffer QST demonstrated lower SDs (± 0.373D, ± 0.379D, ± 0.380D, ± 0.418D, respectively) compared to the VRF formula (all P < 0.05). EVO2.0 and K6 showed significantly different SDs compared to Barrett Universal II (BUII) (all P < 0.02). In the medium K group (43 D ≤ Km < 46 D), VRF-G, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS recorded lower MAEs (0.307D to 0.320D) than Olsen (OLCR) and Castrop (all P < 0.03), with RBF3.0 having the second lowest MAE (0.309D), significantly lower than VRF and Olsen (OLCR) (all P < 0.05). In the steep K group (Km ≥ 46D), RBF3.0, K6, and Kane achieved significantly lower MAEs (0.279D, 0.290D, 0.291D, respectively) than Castrop (all P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe study highlights the varying accuracy of newer IOL formulas based on corneal power. VRF-G, EVO2.0, Kane, K6, and Hoffer QST are highly accurate for flat corneas, while VRF-G, RBF3.0, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS are recommended for medium K corneas. In steep corneas, RBF3.0, K6, and Kane show superior performance.

The prevalence of dry eye in patients with psoriasis attending a tertiary care hospital in western Maharashtra

: Psoriasis affects 0.5–11.4% of adults. Psoriasis is caused by a complicated chain of immune cells and cytokines, containing tumour necrosis factors (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17, 22, and 23. Psoriasis causes systemic inflammation, which can cause arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome. Our study explores dry eye in Western Maharashtra's psoriasis patients at a tertiary care hospital. A tertiary care hospital outpatient dermatology and ophthalmology department psoriasis patients were included in a cross-sectional research. Patient ages spanned from 20 to 60 years. The anterior and posterior ocular segments were examined, and dry eye was assessed. OSDI, Schirmer's test, TBUT, and corneal and conjunctiva staining has been scored. The PASI score has been received. Degree of dry eye was assessed using Dews dry eye grading system. Dry eye was present in 63.1 percent of people. Cases included 24.4% with mild dryness in their eyes. Moderate dryness made up 46.3% of cases, and severe dryness made up 29.3% of cases. The PASI score and dry eye did not have a statistically significant connection (P=0.355). A PASI score of 10 to 25 indicated the most severe case of dry eye, followed by a score of 10 (29 eyes) and &amp;#62;25. (23 eyes). A total of 81.5 percent of eyes had abnormal OSDI scores, 56.2 percent had abnormal TBUT scores, and 49.2 percent had abnormal Schirmer Test results. Dry eye in psoriasis patients requires dermatologist-ophthalmologist teamwork for comprehensive therapy. Psoriasis, especially in long-lasting cases, can lead to meibomian gland dysfunction.

The features of dome-shape Macula and related complications in high myopia on optical coherence tomography.

This study used optical coherence tomography scanning and 3D reconstruction of the macular region in high myopia to examine more thoroughly and carefully the differences between high myopia-related macular complications with and without dome-shape macula (DSM) and to determine whether the DSM's fine structure has an effect on them. Retrospective analysis of the medical records of 345 eyes with high myopia who underwent an optical coherence tomography (OCT) examination. They were divided into the DSM group (69 eyes) and the group without DSM (276 eyes). Macular complications between the two groups were compared. The height of the DSM and the diameter of the dome base were measured. And then the association between DSM type, protrusion height and macular problems were analyzed. Epiretinal membrane (ERM) and extrafoveal schisis occurred more frequently in the DSM group, but the was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of foveal schisis between the two groups. The majority of eyes in the DSM categorization had a horizontal oval-shaped domain. In the DSM group, there was no evident difference in the percentage of eyes with macular complications in the groups below 150 um and above 150 um. OCT examination-based fine macular structure analysis reveals that DSM affects various macular problems in distinct ways. DSM could increase the risk of extrafoveal schisis and ERM while decreasing the risk of foveal schisis. The height of the DSM had no obvious impact on the prevalence of macular complications.

The impact of COVID-19 on aflibercept treatment of neovascular AMD in Sweden – data from the Swedish Macula Register

BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to compare the real-world aflibercept treatment and visual outcomes, and to examine the adherence to pandemic guidelines in two groups of patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden up to the 1-year follow-up.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study including 2915 treatment naïve eyes with nAMD. Using data from the Swedish Macula Register (SMR), 1597 eyes initiating treatment between 1 July 2018 and 31 January 2019 (pre-pandemic group) were compared with 1318 eyes starting treatment between 1 February and 31 August 2020 (pandemic group). The eyes were then followed for 1 year ± 2 months, hence the first group was unaffected by the pandemic while the second group was affected. The focus was on baseline characteristics, visual acuity (VA) change from baseline, number of injections, treatment regimen, number of appointments and the frequency and length of appointment delays. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to compare baseline VA to follow-up VA within the respective groups. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare outcomes between the groups.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The percentage of eyes with an available follow-up VA after 1 year was 58% in the pre-pandemic group vs. 44% in the pandemic group. VA in the pre-pandemic group had increased significantly after 1 year, from 62.2 ± 14.1 letters to 64.8 ± 16.1 letters (n = 921); p < 0.0001. In the pandemic group, VA increased from 61.1 ± 15.8 to 64.9 ± 16.9 (n = 575); p < 0.0001. There was no significant difference in mean VA change between the groups; p = 0.1734. The pre-pandemic group had significantly more delays than the pandemic group, 45% vs. 36%; p < 0.0001.ConclusionsThe pre-pandemic and pandemic groups had similar VA gains at 1-year follow-up, but with a reduced number of available VA in the pandemic group. Clinics were able to implement and prioritize injection visits excluding VA measurements, helping to reduce delays and maintain VA gains during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trifocal versus monofocal intraocular lens implantation in eyes previously treated with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia.

To assess visual and refractive outcomes of trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes that had previously undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia and to compare them with those recorded after implantation of a monofocal IOL. Retrospective comparative cases series. This study evaluated uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), safety, and efficacy after the implantation of two comparable trifocal IOL models and one monofocal IOL model in patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK. Patients were classified according to the implanted IOL (monofocal or trifocal). A total of 211 eyes from 170 patients received a monofocal IOL, and 211 eyes from 161 patients received a trifocal IOL. At the end of the study, after lensectomy, there was a higher myopic residual spherical equivalent in the monofocal group because some eyes had been targeted for slight myopia to achieve monovision; therefore, UDVA was better in the trifocal group. CDVA was comparable in both groups. As expected, both monocular and binocular UNVA were significantly better in the trifocal group. Although the percentage of eyes that lost ≥1 line of CDVA did not differ between the groups, the safety index was slightly better in the monofocal group. Although implantation of monofocal and trifocal IOLs after myopic LASIK yielded excellent distance visual outcomes, UNVA was significantly better for the trifocal IOL, with a minimally worse safety profile. Trifocal IOLs can be considered after previous LASIK for myopia, with an appropriate patient selection.

How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the accuracy of 10 formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract eye with an axial length (AL) of more than 28.0 mm. We searched scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for research published over the past 5 years, up to Sept 2023. The inclusion criteria were case series studies that compared different formulas (Barrett II, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Holladay 1 w-k and SRK/T w-k), in patients with extremely long AL undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation. The mean difference (MD) of mean absolute error (MAE) and the odds ratio (OR) of both the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of prediction error (PPE±0.50D) and the percentage of eyes within ±1.00D of prediction error (PPE±1.00D) among different formulas were pooled using meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies, involving 1376 eyes, were included to evaluate the 10 formulas mentioned above. Among these formulas, Barrett II, EVO, Kane, and Hill-RBF demonstrated significantly lower MAE values compared to SRK/T. Furthermore, Kane and Hill-RBF had lower MAE values than EVO. Additionally, Barrett II and Kane yielded significantly lower MAE values than Haigis while Hill-RBF showed significantly lower MAE values than Holladay 1. Moreover, Hill-RBF showed the highest values for both PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D, followed by Kane. Both EVO and Kane had higher values of PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D compared to Haigis and SRK/T. The Wang-Koch adjusted formulas and new-generation formulas have shown potential for higher accuracy in predicting IOL power for cataract patients with extremely long AL compared to traditional formulas. Based on the current limited clinical studies, Hill-RBF and Kane formulas seem to be a better choice for eyes with extremely long AL.

Comparison of Pre- and Post-DMEK Keratometry and Total Keratometry Values for IOL Power Calculations in Eyes Undergoing Triple DMEK

Purpose To evaluate prediction accuracy of pre- and post-DMEK keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) values for IOL power calculations in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) eyes undergoing DMEK with cataract surgery (triple DMEK). Methods Retrospective cross-sectional multicenter study of 55 FECD eyes (44 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2022 between two centers in USA and Europe. Swept-source optical coherence tomography biometry (IOLMaster 700) was used for pre- and post-DMEK measurements. K and TK values were used for power calculations with ten formulae (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay I, Kane, and SRK/T). Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation, and percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Studied formulae were additionally adjusted using a method published previously (IOLup1D Method), which increases the IOL power by 1D. While both eyes from the same patient were considered for descriptive statistics, we restricted to one eye per individual (44 eyes for statistical comparisons. Results MAEs for all formulae were lower for post-DMEK K and TK than pre-DMEK K and TK by an average of 0.24 and 0.47 D, respectively. The lowest MAE was 0.49 D for Kane using post-DMEK TK, and the highest MAE was 1.05 D for BUII using pre-DMEK TK. Most IOLup1D formulae had lower MAEs than pre-DMEK K and TK formulae. Conclusions The IOLup1D Method should be used instead of pre-DMEK K and TK values for triple DMEK in FECD eyes. Using post-DMEK TK values for cataract surgery after DMEK provides better refractive accuracy than any of the three studied methods used for triple DMEK procedures.

Correction of axial length measurement error by IOLMaster 700 could improve refractive prediction accuracy in silicone oil-filled eyes.

To determine whether correcting the axial length (AL) measurement error of the IOLMaster 700 could improve the refractive prediction accuracy in silicone oil-filled eyes. This study included 265 cataract patients (265 eyes) with silicone oil tamponade who were scheduled for phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. The performances of various formulas, including Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T), were evaluated. The refractive prediction errors (PE) calculated with measured AL (ALmeas) and corrected AL with silicone oil adjustment (SOAL) were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the ALmeas (<23 mm; 23-26 mm; ≥26 mm). Using SOAL significantly reduced the hyperopic PE of formulas when compared to ALmeas (-0.05 to 0.17 D vs 0.15 to 0.38 D, p < 0.001). After applying AL correction, all formulas showed a lower mean absolute PE (0.47-0.57 D vs 0.50-0.69 D). The percentage of eyes within ±1.0 D of PE increased from 84.91%-88.68% to 89.81%-91.32% for new formulas and from 78.11%-83.40% to 85.66%-88.68% for traditional formulas, with the use of SOAL. Subgroup analysis showed that the majority of formulas with SOAL in prediction accuracy for eyes with an AL ≥26 mm (p < 0.05). The refractive prediction accuracy in silicone oil-filled eyes was improved by correcting the AL measurement error of the IOLMaster 700, especially for long eyes.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Using 9 Formula

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas.Methods: This study is retrospective consecutive case series. A total of 228 eyes of 228 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery between October 2015 and March 2021 were included. The accuracy of nine IOL calculation formulas (Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical version, Hill-radial basis function, Olsen, Barrett Universal II [Barrett II], Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer, and SRK/T) was compared and analyzed using differences between the predicted refractive power and actual refractive power at 2 months after cataract surgery. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes that were within ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D of the target refraction were calculated for each formula.Results: For all eyes, Haigis formula was the most accurate in MAE, followed by Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, Haigis formula showed the highest accuracy. A total of 20 eyes of 20 patients had more than 25 mm axial length. Regarding MAE, Hoffer Q was the most accurate, followed by the Olsen formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, the Hoffer Q formula was the most accurate. A total of 24 eyes of 24 patients had more than 46 D keratometry. Regarding MAE and MedAE, Haigis was the most accurate, followed by the Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.5 D, Holladay formula was the most accurate.Conclusions: Barrett II and Haigis formulas showed greater accuracy for all patients when we determined IOL power before cataract surgery. Hoffer Q, Olsen, and Barrett II formulas showed higher accuracy for long axial length. And Haigis and Barrett II were the most accurate for steep keratometry.

Outcomes After Implantation of a Trifocal Toric Intraocular Lens Using Intraoperative Aberrometry, Digital Image Tracking, and Femtosecond Laser.

To evaluate the refractive and visual acuity outcomes when using trifocal toric intraocular lenses (IOLs), femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS), swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometry, digital image tracking (DT) and intraoperative aberrometry (IA). This prospective, single-arm, observational study of refractive and visual outcomes included 40 eyes of 34 subjects. Preoperative biometry was performed with the Argos, FLACS and digital marking with LenSx, and IA and DT with ORA. Eyes were implanted with the Clareon PanOptix toric IOL. Study outcome measures included absolute prediction error, residual refractive astigmatism, and monocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuity at distance (UDVA, CDVA), intermediate (UIVA, DCIVA; 60cm), and near (UNVA, DCNVA; 40cm). Mean absolute prediction error (spherical equivalent) was 0.43 ± 0.36 D, and the percentage of eyes with absolute prediction error ≤ 0.5 D was 72.5% (29/40 eyes). Mean residual astigmatism was 0.36 ± 0.65 D, and the percentage of eyes with residual astigmatism ≤ 0.5 D was 80% (32/40 eyes). Monocular UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA was 20/25 or better in 75%, 64%, and 87% of eyes respectively. Monocular CDVA, DCIVA, and DCNVA was 20/25 or better in 95%, 64%, and 87% of eyes respectively. The results of this study suggest that trifocal toric implantation with SS-OCT, FLACS, DT, and IA can provide excellent refractive and visual outcomes.

Refractive Predictability of Two Intraocular Lens Power Formulas in Long, Medium, and Short Eyes Using a Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer.

To compare the refractive predictability of Argos measurements with Barrett Universal II (BUII) and Barrett True Axial Length (BTAL) formulas in a large sample of long, medium, and short axial length (AL) eyes. A retrospective chart review identified 445 eyes of 247 patients for inclusion. The Argos was used for preoperative biometry, and BUII formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. Back calculations were performed using data from the Argos for the BTAL formula. Data were collected for postoperative absolute prediction error (APE), refractive outcomes, and monocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities at distance (UDVA, CDVA). Overall, mean APE was 0.36 ± 0.33 D for BUII and for 0.34 ± 0.32 D BTAL (p = 0.04). In short AL eyes, mean APE was 0.45 ± 0.37 D for BUII and for 0.37 ± 0.31 D BTAL (p < 0.001). No significant differences between BUII and BTAL were identified for long AL or medium AL eyes. The percentages of eyes with APE of 0.5 D or less in long, medium, and short eyes were 79%, 79% and 51%, respectively, for BUII and 82%, 78% and 69%, respectively, for BTAL. The prediction accuracies were high with both the BUII and BTAL formulas in long, medium, and short eyes, leading to excellent refractive outcomes. The BTAL formula may have lower absolute prediction error in short eyes compared to BUII.

The effect of patient age on some new and older IOL power calculation formulas.

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in different age groups using various IOL calculation formulas. Data from 421 eyes of 421 patients ≥60 years old (ages: 60-69, n = 131; 70-74, n = 105; 75-84, n = 158 and ≥85, n = 27), who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with SN60WF IOL implantation at John A. Moran Eye Center, Salt Lake City, USA, were retrospectively obtained. The SD of the prediction error (PE), median and mean absolute PEs and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated after constant optimizations for the following formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 and SRK/T. Results were compared between the different age groups. Predictability rates within 0.25D were lower for the eldest age group compared with the other groups using the EVO 2.0 (33% vs. 37%-53%, p = 0.045), Kane (26% vs. 35%-50%, p = 0.034) and SRK/T (22% vs. 31%-49%, p = 0.002). Higher median absolute refractive errors for all formulas were observed in the oldest group [range: 0.39 D (Haigis, Hoffer QSR)-0.48 D (Kane)], followed by the youngest group [range: 0.30 D (RBF 3.0)-0.39 D (Holladay 1, SRK/T)] but did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences between the groups in the distribution parameter were seen. Current IOL power calculation formulas may have variable accuracy for different age groups. This should be taken into account when planning cataract surgery to improve refractive outcomes.

Refractive Predictability between Standard and Total Keratometry during the Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery with Monofocal Intraocular Lens with Enhanced Intermediate Function.

We aimed to compare the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula using the standard keratometry (K) and total K (TK) during the femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with a monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function using currently used formulas. A retrospective review of 125 eyes from 125 patients who had undergone FLACS with implantation of monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function was conducted. The predicted refractive power was calculated using an optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) according to the K and TK in the Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay 2 formulas. Absolute prediction error (APE) obtained from the actual postoperative refractive outcomes and the refractive error predicted in each formula was compared one month after surgery. Mean APE ranged between 0.29 and 0.39 diopters (D) regardless of the calculation formula and the method of measuring corneal curvature. Significant differences were observed in the APE from the four formulas and the two keratometric measurements (p = 0.014). In a total of 125 eyes from 125 patients, the mean APE was lowest with the Barrett Universal II formula. Across all formulas, both the mean APE and the median APE tended to be lower for K than for TK, although there was no significant difference. Approximately 70% to 80% of the patients were included within 0.5 D of the refractive error across all formulas. The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of APE outcomes was not statistically different between the K and TK data when using each formula. Keratometric measurements considering the poster corneal curvature did not show any additional advantages when implanting the monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function during the FLACS.

Comparison of spherical equivalent determined by Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff-II (SRK-II) formula with target post-operative final refraction in patients undergoing cataract surgery

The most challenging subject in patient satisfaction after cataract surgery depends upon post-operative refractive outcomes. Accurately predicting post-operative refraction is necessary during the calculation of Intraocular lens (IOL) power. The Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff (SRK) II formula is one of the few formulae being used for the calculation of IOL power. Our study is to compare the accuracy of the SRK-II formula with targeted final refraction of patients undergoing phacoemulsification. This study was performed on 102 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification. IOL power was calculated using the SRK-II formula. One and a half months after surgery, refraction was performed. Differences between actual post-operative refraction and predicted spherical equivalent was calculated and termed absolute refractive error. Paired t-test was used for comparing actual post-operative refraction and predicted spherical equivalent.The mean absolute error (MAE) of the SRK-II formula was 0.44 D (diopters) overall. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the predicted spherical equivalent was 81%. Patients having post-operative refractive error within ±1.0 D for short, average, and long axial length were 88% (P value 0.21), 92% (P value 0.0009), and 91% (P value 0.18) respectively.We found that the SRK-II formula was accurate and reliable for predicting the post-operative refractive error in eyes with normal axial lengths as the post-operative refraction is near emmetropia and is a good method for IOL power calculation with normal axial lengths.

DIFFERENCES IN THE PROGRESSION BETWEEN MYOPIC MACULOSCHISIS EYES WITH AND WITHOUT MACULAR DETACHMENT IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF THE DISEASE: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study Based on the New Myopic Traction Maculopathy Staging System.

To investigate the pace of visual acuity loss in myopic maculoschisis eyes with or without macular detachment and identify associated risk factors. One thousand three hundred and thirty-four eyes of 991 patients with high myopia were reviewed. A new myopic traction maculopathy staging system classified four retinal stages and three foveal stages. To the myopic traction maculopathy eyes with normal fovea, maculoschisis with and without macular detachment was defined as Stage 3a and Stages 1a, 2a respectively. One hundred and ten (8.25%) eyes with maculoschisis were included, with a follow-up of 24.00 ± 17.47 months. Of them, 84 (76.36%) were Stages 1a, 2a, and 26 (23.64%) were Stage 3a. The visual acuity loss per year during the follow-up period was similar between eyes with Stages 1a, 2a and Stage 3a (3.13 ± 12.21 vs. 3.41 ± 18.42 letters, P = 0.930). Multivariate analyses revealed that vitreomacular interface factors were significantly associated with visual acuity loss during the follow-up, no matter in Stages 1a, 2a or Stage 3a ( P = 0.039 and P = 0.038, respectively). In the Stages 1a, 2a group, the percentage of eyes that lost at least 10 letters at the final visit compared with the baseline visual acuity was higher in eyes with vitreomacular interface factors than in those without vitreomacular interface factors (13 eyes, 50.00% vs. 14 eyes, 24.14%, P = 0.019). No differences were found in visual acuity loss pace between Stages 1a, 2a and Stage 3a. Surgical intervention or at least more intensive follow-up should be considered for Stages 1a, 2a eyes with vitreomacular interface factors, to promote a more favorable visual outcome.

36-Month Outcomes from the Prospective GEMINI Study: Canaloplasty and Trabeculotomy Combined with Cataract Surgery for Patients with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

To provide long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular hypotensive medication usage outcomes through 36 months for patients treated with canaloplasty and trabeculotomy (OMNI Surgical System) combined with cataract surgery as participants in the GEMINI study. Eleven ophthalmology practices in 10 US states. Non-interventional 36-month extension of the 12-month, prospective, multicenter, GEMINI study. GEMINI patients had visually significant cataract, mild-to-moderate glaucoma (ICD-10 guidelines), medicated IOP <33 mmHg, and unmedicated mean diurnal IOP (DIOP) (after washout) 21-36 mmHg. Patients from GEMINI were eligible for inclusion. Outcome measures were reduction in mean unmedicated DIOP, reduction in mean IOP-lowering medications, percent of eyes with ≥20% reduction in unmedicated DIOP, and percent of eyes with unmedicated DIOP ≥6 and ≤18 mmHg. A total of 66 patients provided consent and were enrolled. Mean (SD) unmedicated DIOP was 23.1 (2.7) mmHg at baseline, 16.7 (4.1), 16.3 (3.3) at 24 and 36 months; mean reductions of 6.2 (4.1) and 6.9 (3.4) mmHg. Twelve-month IOP at the end of GEMINI was 15.6 mmHg. The proportion of eyes with ≥20% reduction in IOP was 77% and 78% (months 24 and 36) compared to 87% at month 12 from GEMINI. About 68% of patients had an IOP between 6 and 18 mmHg at 24 months and 71% at 36 months. Mean IOP-lowering medications was 1.7 at baseline, which was reduced to 0.4 (24 months, -1.3) and 0.3 (36 months, -1.4). About 74% of patients (46 of 62) were medication free at 36 months. GEMINI demonstrated 12-month effectiveness of canaloplasty and trabeculotomy with OMNI combined with cataract surgery for IOP and medication reduction in mild-to-moderate glaucoma. However, longer-term data is key to the decision making in the selection of a surgical treatment. This GEMINI extension demonstrates that the 12-month outcomes from GEMINI were sustained through 36 months.

Comparison of toric intraocular lens calculation with the integrated K method and three single biometric devices.

To compare astigmatic outcomes using the Integrated K method and anterior surface keratometry from 3 different biometric devices. Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. Retrospective case series. Eyes of patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were analyzed. Predicted postoperative astigmatism was calculated for Integrated K method, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar and Pentacam. The mean centroid error in predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism (PE), mean absolute PE and percentage of eyes within 0.5 diopter (D), 0.75 D and 1 D of absolute magnitude of PE were compared. A subset analysis was done where the difference in cylinder magnitude between the 2 methods was more than 0.25 D. Spherical prediction outcomes were also analyzed. 241 eyes of 139 patients were included in the study. The mean centroid PE of Integrated K method (-0.07 @ 69) was significantly different from IOLMaster and Pentacam. The mean absolute PE with Integrated K method (0.33 ± 0.17) was significantly lower than all 3 devices. The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D and 0.75 D of absolute magnitude of PE was 82% and 99% for Integrated K method, 76% and 95% for IOLMaster and Lenstar, and 60% and 86% for Pentacam. In the subset analysis, the improvement in accuracy of the Integrated K method compared with a single device was greater in terms of the percentage of eyes predicted within 0.5 D. The Integrated K method did not impact the spherical prediction outcomes. The integrated K method is more accurate and precise than anterior surface keratometry from a single biometric device.

Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Calculations Using Estimated Versus Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism

To compare the prediction accuracy of toric intraocular lens calculations using estimated vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA). Retrospective case series. A total of 110 eyes of 110 patients with uncomplicated toric intraocular lens implantation were included in this study. Predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated with the Barrett Toric Calculator using the estimated PCA (E-PCA), the measured IOLMaster 700 PCA (I-PCA), and the measured Pentacam PCA (P-PCA). Refractive astigmatism prediction errors (RA-PEs), including their trimmed (tr-) centroid (mean vector), spread (precision), tr-mean absolute RA-PE (accuracy), and percentage within a certain threshold, were determined using vector analysis and compared between groups. University Eye Clinic, Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands. The tr-centroid RA-PEs of the E-PCA (0.02 diopter [D] at 82.2°), the I-PCA (0.08 D at 35.5°), and the P-PCA (0.09 D at 69.1°) were significantly different from each other (P < .01), but not significantly different from zero (P = .75, P = .05, and P = .05, respectively). The E-PCA had the best precision (tr-mean 0.40 D), which was not significantly lower than the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .53) and P-PCA (0.43 D, P = .06). The E-PCA also had the best accuracy (0.40 D), which was not significantly different from the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .26) and significantly better than the P-PCA (0.44 D, P < .01). The precision and accuracy of the I-PCA did not significantly differ from those of the P-PCA. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of eyes within a certain absolute RA-PE threshold. The Barrett Toric Calculator using the E-PCA, I-PCA, or P-PCA showed a comparable prediction of postoperative refractive astigmatism in standard clinical practice.

Effectiveness and the nomogram of small incision lenticule extraction in the correction of myopic anisometropia in adults.

To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and predictability of small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for the treatment of anisometropia, and to explore the personalized design scheme of SMILE in correcting adult myopia anisometropia based on the nomogram. It's a prospective cohort study. Patients with anisometropic myopia of refractive difference ≥ 2.0 diopters (D) who underwent SMILE between September 2020 and March 2021 were enrolled. Clinical features and visual function were assessed preoperatively and at 1wk, 1, 3, and 6mo after the operation. The examination included tests for uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive errors, effectiveness index (preoperative CDVA/postoperative UDVA), safety index (postoperative CDVA/preoperative CDVA), nomogram and stereoscopic function. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test and repeated-measures analyses of variance were used for continuous variables, and Pearson Chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. The study involved 45 consecutive patients (average age: 25.0±6.9y; 82 out of 90 eyes underwent SMILE, while 8 eyes were not operated). The average preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -4.74±0.22 D. Six months after surgery, the effectiveness index was 1.05±0.12, and the safety index was 1.09±0.11. Seventy eyes (85.4%) exhibited SE correction error within ±0.5 D. The percentage of eyes with Titmus stereoscopic function equal to or less than 200″ significantly increased from 55.6% preoperatively to 88.9% postoperatively (P<0.05). There was statistically significant difference between higher myopia eyes and contralateral eyes in average nomogram value/spherical refraction ratio. SMILE is safe, effective and predictable in correcting myopic anisometropia, and it improves stereoscopic visual function of anisometropia patients. The precise and individualized design of the nomogram is a vital element to ensure the balance of both eyes after SMILE.

The accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas based on artificial intelligence in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To systematically compare and rank the accuracy of AI-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas and traditional IOL formulas in highly myopic eyes. We screened PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to April 2023. The following outcome data were collected: mean absolute error (MAE), percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D), and median absolute error (MedAE). The network meta-analysis was conducted by R 4.3.0 and STATA 17.0. Twelve studies involving 2,430 adult myopic eyes (with axial lengths >26.0 mm) that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with mono-focal IOL implantation were included. The network meta-analysis of 21 formulas showed that the top three AI-based formulas, as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. The three formulas had the lowest MedAE and were more accurate than traditional vergence formulas, such as SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Hoffer Q regarding MAE, percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D. The top AI-based formulas for calculating IOL power in highly myopic eyes were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. They were significantly more accurate than traditional vergence formulas and ranked better than formulas with Wang-Koch AL modifications or newer generations of formulas such as Barrett and Olsen. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022335969.