A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia. | LitMetric

Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia.

J Cataract Refract Surg

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University of Marburg (Lazaridis, Schraml, Sekundo), Marbur, and the Department of Ophthalmology, Johannes Gutenberg University (Preußner), Mainz, Germany.

Published: March 2021


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for myopia and myopic astigmatism.

Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Design: Retrospective comparative case series.

Methods: Preoperative evaluation included optical biometry using IOLMaster 500 and corneal tomography using Pentacam HR. The corneal tomography measurements were repeated at 3 months postoperatively. The change of spherical equivalent due to SMILE was calculated by the manifest refraction at corneal plane (SMILE-Dif). A theoretical model, involving the virtual implantation of the same IOL before and after SMILE, was used, and the IOL power calculations were performed using ray tracing (OKULIX, version 9.06) and third- (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) and fourth-generation (Haigis-L and Haigis) formulas. The difference between the IOL-induced refractive error at corneal plane before and after SMILE (IOL-Dif) was compared with SMILE-Dif. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-Dif-IOL-Dif.

Results: The study included 204 eyes that underwent SMILE. The PE with ray tracing was -0.06 ± 0.40 diopter (D); Haigis-L, -0.39 ± 0.62 D; Haigis, 0.70 ± 0.48 D; Hoffer Q, 0.84 ± 0.47 D; Holladay 1, 1.21 ± 0.51 D; and SRK/T, 1.46 ± 0.54 D. The PE with ray tracing was significantly smaller compared with that of all formulas (P ≤ .001). The PE variance with ray tracing was σ2 = 0.159, being significantly more homogenous compared with that of all formulas (P ≤ .011, F ≥ 6.549). Ray tracing resulted in an absolute PE of 0.5 D or lesser in 81.9% of the cases, followed by Haigis-L (53.4%), Haigis (35.3%), Hoffer Q (25.5%), Holladay 1 (6.4%), and SRK/T (2.9%) formulas.

Conclusions: Ray tracing was the most accurate approach for IOL power calculation after myopic SMILE.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000405DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ray tracing
24
power calculation
12
iol power
12
predictability intraocular
8
intraocular lens
8
calculation small-incision
8
small-incision lenticule
8
lenticule extraction
8
corneal tomography
8
corneal plane
8

Similar Publications