Clearance and ultrafiltration of reused dialyzers.

F. Gotch

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions

Wenhan Lu,Yu Hou,Hongfang Yang,Xinghuai Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276286

IF: 3.7

2022-10-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results: Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions: No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration: Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541.
Comparative Clinical Accuracy Analysis of the Newly Developed ZZ IOL and Four Existing IOL Formulas for Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

Zhang Jun,Shao Jie,Zheng Li,Shen Ye,Zhao Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7

IF: 2.086

2021-01-01

BMC Ophthalmology

Abstract:Background Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. Study design Retrospective study. Methods Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. Results This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing ( P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL ( P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero ( P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.02), Barrett true K ( P = 0.03), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.03), Barrett True K ( P = 0.02), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively ( P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). Conclusions The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
Error Sources and Correction of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Corneal Refractive Surgery

XU Bai-sheng,GU Yang-shun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-5803.2013.03.005

2013-01-01

Abstract:As the increasing popularity of corneal refractive surgery and the aging of the society population,it presents a major challenge in accurate calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract patients with prior refractive surgery.To cope with this situation,great efforts have been made to reveal the sources of calculation error and available corrective process.Essentially,the instrument error,the keratometer index error and the IOL formula error are considered to be the main three sources,whereas other biometric measurements (e.g.axial length) contribute slightly.Numerous established algorithms aim to reduce I0L prediction error mainly through postoperative corneal power correction or direct adjustment of calculated IOL power.However,it presents a confusing of the variety of procedures and formulas for the controversy of optimal choice still going on,so it is important to make comprehensive consideration of reliable historic material,physician's experience,and patient' s expectation when faced with this issues clinically.
Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack

Na Hyun Kim,Yujin Gim,Kyu-Ryong Choi,Wool Suh,Roo Min Jun,Kyung Eun Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5

2023-11-24

Abstract:Background: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. Results: In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group. Conclusions: Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group.
Production of Fatty Livers by 4-Aminopyrazolo-(3,4-d)-Pyrimidine. Toxicological and Pathological Studies.∗

J. Scholler,F. S. Philips,S. Sternberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-93-22769

1956-11-01

Abstract:Summary and conclusions The toxic effects of 4-aminopyrazolo-(3,4-d)-pyrimidine (4-APP) have been studied in mice, rats, cats, and dogs. The agent was found to produce a fatty change in liver which was associated neither with necrosis nor with inflammation. Hepatic insufficiency was evidenced by hyperbilirubinemia, increases in one-stage prothrombin time and decreases in plasma fibrinogen. In rats fat nephrosis and depletion of hematopoietic elements in bone marrow were also seen. Hepatic insufficiency should be anticipated as a possible hazard in clinical trials with 4-APP.
Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery

Naren Shetty,Priyanka Sathe,Aishwarya,Mathew Francis,Rohit Shetty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2758_23

2024-08-01

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the prediction accuracy of various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas on American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator and Barrett True-K total keratometry (TK) in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. Methods: This retrospective study included eyes with history of myopic laser refractive surgery, which have undergone clear or cataractous lens extraction by phacoemulsification followed by IOL implantation. Those who underwent uneventful crystalline lens extraction were included. Eyes with any complication of refractive surgery or those with eventful lens extraction procedure and those who were lost to follow-up were excluded. Formulas compared were Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS average power, ASCRS maximum power on the ASCRS post-refractive calculator and the IOLMaster 700 Barrett True-K TK. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between the implanted IOL power and the predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS online calculator. Results: Forty post-myopic laser-refractive surgery eyes of 26 patients were included. Friedman's test revealed that Shammas formula, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS maximum power were significantly different from all other formulas (P < 0.00001 for each). Median absolute error (MedAE) was the least for Shammas and Barrett True-K TK formulas (0.28 [0.14, 0.36] and 0.28 [0.21, 0.39], respectively) and the highest for Wang-Koch-Maloney (1.29 [0.97, 1.61]). Shammas formula had the least variance (0.14), while Wang-Koch-Maloney formula had the maximum variance (2.66). Conclusion: In post-myopic laser refractive surgery eyes, Shammas formula and Barrett True-K TK no-history formula on ASCRS calculator are more accurate in predicting IOL powers.
A structurally stable realization for Jacobi elliptic functions

Honghao Ji,R. Newcomb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2002.1010471

2002-08-07

Abstract:By adding convergence terms, the dynamical equations for the generation of elliptic functions versus time are presented. This results in a structurally stable oscillator with limit cycles, which are Jacobi elliptic functions. From these equations a CMOS realization is developed with the nonlinearities obtained by using analog four-quadrant multipliers of the type developed by Kimura (1995).
Prediction accuracy of IOL calculation formulas using the ASCRS online calculator for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

Christoph Lwowski,Katarzyna Pawlowicz,Lisa Hinzelmann,Mahmoud Adas,Thomas Kohnen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000238

Abstract:Background: To evaluate IOL calculation formulas provided by an online calculation tool from the ASCRS for an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL after previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange with implantation of a diffractive EDOF IOL and who had a history of myopic LASIK were included. Biometry, refractive data regarding the LASIK procedure, target refraction, and postoperative refraction were collected. Mean prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and the number of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D), ±1.0 D, ±1.5 D, and ±2.0 D were calculated with the following formulas from the ASCRS calculator: Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, Barrett No History, Masket, modified Masket, and the average of all formulas (average). Results: Twenty-five eyes matched the inclusion criteria. Mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.81 ± 0.69 D; the mean pre-LASIK SE was -6.4 ± 3.63 D. The formulas ranked by MAE were Shammas (0.7 ± 0.75 D), Haigis-L (0.72 ± 0.57 D), average (0.79 ± 0.8 D), Barrett True-K (1.14 ± 0.89 D), modified Masket (1.4 ± 1.15 D), Barrett No History (1.45 ± 0.7D ), and Masket (1.64 ± 1.27 D). The formulas with the most eyes within ±0.5 D were average (52%), Shammas (48%), and Haigis-L (44%) formulas. Conclusions: Calculation of IOLs in eyes with a history of refractive surgery remains a challenge. In this study, the Shammas and Haigis-L formulas performed best regarding MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D; however, the average of all formulas delivered reasonable results.
Prediction accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods after laser refractive surgery

Yubo Wu,Songyu Liu,Rongfeng Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0439-x

IF: 2.086

2017-04-08

BMC Ophthalmology

Abstract:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the prediction accuracy of postoperative refractions using partial coherence interferometry (IOL-Master) and applanation ultrasound (AL-3000) assisted with corneal topography (TMS-4) in eyes that had undergone myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).MethodsHaigis-L formula, Koch–Maloney method using Haigis formula, Shammas clinically derived K-value (simulated keratometric value) correction (Shammas c.d.) using Haigis formula, and Shammas post-LASIK (Shammas-PL) formula were used in eyes with myopic LASIK. Constants were derived from the optimized constants in 133 virgin eyes. Refractive outcomes were determined by streak retinoscopy and subjective manifest refraction. Methods and formulas were evaluated by mean error (ME), standard deviation (SD), range of error, mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error, 95% confidence interval of MAE, and percentage of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D), ±1.0 D, and ±1.5 D of prediction.ResultsSDs of the Haigis-L, Koch-Maloney method using the Haigis formula, Shammas c.d. using the Haigis formula, and the Shammas-PL formula using IOL-Master were 0.721, 0.695, 0.695, and 0.698; and those using AL-3000 assisted with TMS-4 were 0.782, 0.741, 0.743, and 0.778, respectively.ConclusionsNo-history methods that corrected corneal power with measurements using IOL-Master were promising in myopic post-LASIK eyes, but still a gap in prediction accuracy exists between virgin eyes and post-LASIK eyes.

ophthalmology
[Chronic persistent HBsAG positive hepatitis in children. I. Subpopulations of T and B lymphocytes].

M. Masi,P. Paolucci,G. Timoncini,M. Fantini,F. Chiodo,C. Franceschi

1978-09-30

Abstract:T and B peripheral blood lymphocytes were studied in five children affected by chronic persistent hepatitis HBsAg-positive. The percentage of E rosette forming cells was found decreased while thymidine uptake after Phytohaemagglutinin stimulation reached values higher than that of normal controls. Null cells were found increased. In all the patients the percentage of IgG bearing lymphocytes was markedly decreased. Such alterations of T cells compartement are similar to those found by other authors in the aggressive form. The hypothesis of a derangement of T cell subpopulation regulatory activity is put forward.
Predicting accuracy of spherical equivalent after cataract surgery using the online Zcalc calculator for toric IOLs

Ling Jin,Yamin Mao,Xuan Yu,Mengyan Wen,Junjie Yang,Yukan Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78667-x

IF: 4.6

2024-11-13

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Compare Zcalc with other formulas on spherical equivalent prediction errors (PE) and explore the relationship between PE and ocular parameters. Optimize 709 IOL power calculation. 114 eyes with age-related cataract and preoperative regular corneal astigmatism of more than 1.5D were included. They underwent cataract surgery followed by implantation of a toric intraocular lens (Zeiss Torbi 709 M) calculated by Zcalc formula. The prediction errors of spherical equivalent (SE) were analysed 3 months post-surgery. The refractive prediction errors of Zcalc, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and K6 formulas were 0.07 ± 0.63D, − 0.36 ± 0.65D, − 0.41 ± 0.67D, and − 0.31 ± 0.66D, respectively. Statistically significant difference were observed between Zcalc and other formulas. The Zcalc was prone to positive deviation, Barrett Universal II, Kane and K6 were prone to negative deviation. When the axial length is greater than 29.0 mm, the prediction errors of Kane is higher, and prone to negative deviation. Prediction errors of Zcalc are small in all eyes and prone to positive deviation. For more accurate prediction, we recommend Barrett Universal II formula for 709 IOL power calculation.

multidisciplinary sciences
[Clinical Study of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Cornea Refractive Surgery].

Xu Chen,Ying-hong Ji,Yong-xiang Jiang,Yi Luo,Chun-hui Jiang,Yi Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2010.06.010

2010-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the results of cataract surgery in myopia patients after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and to compare the predictability of various methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.METHOD:Seventeen cases (24 eyes) who had LASIK for myopia were divided into two group by with or without history of corneal power data. Corneal power was obtained by autokeratometry, corneal topography, Pentacam and IOL Master. The IOL power was calculated with the clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis formula, Feiz-Mannis method and other methods. Postoperative final refraction and the deviation of the final spherical equivalent (SEQ) from the refractive target were measured 3 month after the surgery. Two sample t-test, linear correlation and regression analysis, paired t-test and Bland-Altman method of agreement were used to analyze these data.RESULTS:In the group with history data, the mean corneal power was (43.28 ± 1.21) D and the mean SEQ was (-15.33 ± 4.36) D before the LASIK surgery. In the group without history data, the mean SEQ was (-10.11 ± 3.12) D. Before cataract surgery, the mean corneal power was (36.96 ± 2.07) D and (36.85 ± 1.40) D in these two groups. The mean arithmetic refractive prediction error after cataract surgery was (-0.66 ± 1.27) D and (-0.47 ± 0.82) D in these two groups, respectively. Data calculated by using Hamed-Wang-Koch method, Masket Formula, Koch/Maloney method, Shammar method and Pentacam ERK method were lower than the emmetropic IOL power. Data calculated by using Feiz-Mannis Formula, Latkany Method, Savini method, Armberri Double K method were overestimated. The mean arithmetic errors of clinic history method, Corneal Passby Method and Haigis-L Formula were not significantly different from the predict refraction (P = 0.364, 0.318 and 0.069; t = 0.956, -1.057 and -1.911, respectively). There was strong correlation between the value calculated by using Feiz-Mannis Method or Haigis-L Formula and the true power (r = 0.921, 0.915; P = 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). But none of the values calculated by these method could fully agree with the true value.CONCLUSIONS:IOL power should be calculated accurately to avoid undercorrection. We recommend the combination of clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis Method, Corneal Passby Method and Haigis-L Formula for the calculation of IOL power.
Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

Kate Gettinger,Sachiko Masui,Miki Omoto,Hidemasa Torii,Erisa Yotsukura,Yasuyo Nishi,Masahiko Ayaki,Ken Hayashi,Kazuno Negishi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78266-w

IF: 4.6

2024-11-05

Scientific Reports

Abstract:This retrospective study compared postoperative prediction errors of recent formulas using standard- or total keratometry (K or TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic LASIK patients. It included 56 eyes of 56 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery, with at least 1-month follow-up at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo or Hayashi Eye Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. Prediction errors, absolute errors, and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated using nine formulas: Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K TK, Haigis-L, Haigis TK, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, Hoffer QST PK, EVO K, and EVO PK. Statistical comparisons utilized Friedman test, Conover's all-pairs post-hoc, Cochran's Q, and McNemar post-hoc testing. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) was compared with heteroscedastic testing. Barrett True-K TK had the lowest median predicted refractive error (-0.01). EVO PK had the smallest median absolute error (0.20). EVO PK had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D of the predicted value (58.9%), significantly better than Haigis-L ( p = 0.047). EVO PK had the lowest mean RMSE value (0.499). The EVO PK formula yielded the most accurate IOL power calculation in post-myopic LASIK eyes, with TK/PK values enhancing accuracy.

multidisciplinary sciences
Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy

Naren Shetty,Priyanka Sathe,Aishwarya,Mathew Francis,Rohit Shetty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_3417_22

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction of the formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK) for myopia. Methods: This retrospective study included 25 eyes of 18 patients whose status was post-RK for treatment of myopia, which had undergone cataract extraction with IOL implantation. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between implanted IOL power and predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. The formulas compared were Humphrey Atlas method, IOLMaster/Lenstar method, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS Average power, and ASCRS Maximum power on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. Results: Median absolute errors were the least for Barrett True-K and ASCRS Maximum power, that is, 0.56 (0.25, 1.04) and 0.56 (0.25, 1.06) D, respectively, and that of Atlas method was 1.60 (0.85, 2.28) D. Median arithmetic errors were positive for Atlas, Barrett True-K, ASCRS Average (0.86 [-0.17, 1.61], 0.14 [-0.22 to 0.54], and 0.23 [-0.054, 0.76] D, respectively) and negative for IOLMaster/Lenstar method and ASCRS Maximum power (-0.02 [-0.46 to 0.38] and - 0.48 [-1.06 to - 0.22] D, respectively). Multiple comparison analysis of Friedman's test revealed that Atlas formula was significantly different from IOLMaster/Lenstar, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS Maximum power; ASCRS Maximum power was significantly different from all others (P < 0.00001). Conclusion: In post-RK eyes, Barrett True-K no-history formula and ASCRS Maximum power given by the ASCRS calculator were more accurate than other available formulas, with ASCRS Maximum leading to more myopic outcomes when compared to others.
Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery and radial keratotomy: Bayesian network meta-analysis

Xiaoying Pan,Yuyao Wang,Zhaohui Li,Zi Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2023.09.026

IF: 5.488

2023-10-21

American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose To compare the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery or radial keratotomy. Design Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published from Jan 1, 2012 to Aug 24, 2022. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error within the target refractive range (± 0.50 diopter [D] or ± 1.00 D). Results Our meta-analysis includes 24 studies of 1172 eyes after myopic refractive surgery that use 12 formulas for intraocular lens power calculation. (1)A network meta-analysis showed that Barrett true-K no history, the OCT formula, and the Masket formula had a significantly higher percent of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the goal than the Haigis-L formula, while the Wang-Koch-Maloney formula showed the poor predictability. Using an error criterion of within ± 1.00 D, the same three formulas performed slightly better than the Haigis-L formula. Based on performance using both prediction error criteria, the Barrett true-K no history formula, OCT formula, and Masket formula showed the highest probability of ranking as the top three among the 12 methods. (2)A direct meta-analysis with a subset of four studies and five formulas indicated that formulas did not differ in percent success for either the ± 0.5 D or ± 1.0 D error range in eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy. Conclusions The OCT, Masket, and Barrett true-K no history formulas are more accurate for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, whereas no significant difference was found among the formulas for eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.

ophthalmology
[Effects of a single intra-articular injection of antibiotics on cartilage structure in rabbits].

E. Bailleu,B. Paul,P. Koch

Abstract:Nebacetin, chloramphenicol, penicillin, and isotonic sodium chloride solution were injected once into 80 knee- and elbow-joints of rabbits. The histologic investigation of the hyaline cartilage after 2 respectively 5 months did not show any kind of lesions. The results of other authors in similar investigations and the indication for intra-articular application of antibiotics are discussed.
Choice of intraocular lens calculation formula for cataract patients with prior pars plana vitrectomy

Jiaqing Zhang,Xiaotong Han,Xiaoyun Chen,Zhenzhen Liu,Yu Zhang,Xiaozhang Qiu,Xuhua Tan,Lixia Luo,Yizhi Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001253

2023-07-13

Abstract:Abstract Purpose: To determine the optimal intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula for vitrectomized eyes with diverse surgical and biometric characteristics. Setting: Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, China. Design: Retrospective consecutive case-series study. Methods: This study included 974 vitrectomized eyes (974 patients) scheduled for phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. Eleven formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II(BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function (RBF), Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay1, and SRK/T. Risk factors for prediction error (PE) exceeding 1D were determined using multiple logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were performed based on surgical history and biometric parameters. Results: The risk of hyperopic PE (>1D) was higher in patients with silicone oil tamponade (odds ratio [OR], 1.82) and longer axial length (AL) (OR, 1.55), while patients with previous scleral buckling (OR, 2.43) or ciliary sulcus IOL implantation (OR, 6.65) were more susceptible to myopic PE (<-1D). The Kane formula had the highest overall prediction accuracy, and also the best in silicone oil-filled eyes and the flat cornea subgroup. The BUII and RBF displayed the optimal performance in eyes with previous scleral buckle and steep cornea, respectively. In eyes with an AL ≥ 26mm, the Holladay1 with the nonlinear version of the Wang-Koch AL adjustment (Holladay1-WKn) showed the lowest absolute PE and highest percentage within ± 1.0D of PE. Conclusions: The Kane achieved the highest overall prediction accuracy in vitrectomized eyes. The optimal formula for eyes with previous scleral buckle, steep cornea, or long AL was BUII, RBF, and Holladay1-WKn, respectively.

ophthalmology,surgery
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in high myopia

Asaad A Ghanem,Hosam M El-Sayed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-620X.71888

Abstract:Purpose: To study the accuracy of different recent intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting a target postoperative refraction ± 1.0D (Diopters) in patients with long eyes (axial length ≥ 26.0 mm) undergoing phacoemulsification. Materials and methods: This study comprised 127 eyes of 87 patients who presented with cataract and axial eye length ≥ 26 mm. Before phacoemulsification and IOL implantation; axial length measurement using immersion ultrasound A-scan technique, and autokeratometry with or without computerized corneal topography for K readings were done. The IOL power was calculated using four formulas, namely the SRK-T, Hoffer-Q, Holladay-2, and Haigis formulas. Four months after surgery, refraction was done. Differences between actual postoperative refraction and assumed target refraction using the different formulas were analyzed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In all 127 eyes, the mean axial length was 31.71 mm (range, 26.06-37.11 mm) and the mean K was 44.68 D (range, 40.05-55.14D). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -17.52D (range, -12.25 to -30.50D). After surgery, the mean spherical equivalent was -0.8 ± 0.83D (range, +1.25 to -3.75D). The mean postoperative refractive SE when implanting a plus power IOLs was -0.3 ± 0.51D (P < 0.001) while the mean postoperative refractive SE when implanting a minus power IOLs was +1.21 ± 0.11D denoting a highly significant tendency toward hyperopia (P < 0.001). Concerning the minus power group, most postoperative refractive error was within +1.0 to +2.0D in the actual implanted IOL and in all other formula calculated IOL power. However, Haigis formula showed the least deviation while SRK-T and other formulas showed a greater tendency toward hyperopia. Conclusions: In eyes with high axial myopia, the performance of SRK-T, Hoffer-Q, Holladay-2 and Haigis formulas are comparable in low plus-powered IOL implantation. Haigis formula is the best formula when minus power IOL is implanted.
Effect of Posterior Keratometry and Corneal Radius Ratio on the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Formulas After Myopic LASIK/PRK

Yuxing Zheng,Jiaqing Zhang,Xiaotong Han,Ruoxuan Huang,Ling Wen,Jinfeng Ye,Yiguo Huang,Xiaozhang Qiu,Xiaoyun Chen,Xuhua Tan,Lixia Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20240718-01

Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the impact of back-to-front corneal radius ratio (B/F ratio) and posterior keratometry (PK) on the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery. Methods: A retrospective, consecutive case series study included 101 patients (132 eyes) with cataract after myopic LASIK/PRK. Mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute PE (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D) of PE were determined. Results: The Barrett True K-TK formula exhibited the lowest MAE (0.59 D) and MedAE (0.48 D) and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of PE (54.55%) in total. In eyes with a B/F ratio of 0.70 or less and PK of -5.70 D or greater, the Potvin-Hill formula displayed the lowest MAE (0.46 to 0.67 D). Conclusions: The Barrett True-TK exhibited the highest prediction accuracy in eyes after myopic LASIK/PRK overall. However, for eyes with a low B/F ratio and flat PK, the Potvin-Hill performed best. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e635-e644.].
Retrospective assessment of accuracy of nine intraocular lens power calculation formulae in eyes with axial myopia

Naren Shetty,Rohit Shetty,Rudy M M A Nuijts,Anuj Satija,Abhijit S Roy,Luci Kaweri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.ijo_1542_23

2024-03-28

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine conventional and newer-generation formulae in calculating intraocular lens power in eyes with axial myopia. Setting: Tertiary eye care center, Bengaluru, India. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional, comparative study conducted in India. Methods: Patients undergoing uneventful phacoemulsification in eyes with axial length >26 mm were included. Preoperative biometry was done using Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland). Single eye of patients undergoing bilateral implantation was randomly selected. Optimized lens constants were used to calculate the predicted postoperative refraction of each formula, which was then compared with the actual refractive outcomes to give the prediction errors, following which subgroup analysis was performed. The Kane formula, Barrett universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill Radial Basis Function (Hill RBF) 3.0, Olsen formula, along with Wang Koch–adjusted four formulae, that is, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formula, were compared for intraocular lens power calculations. Results: One hundred and sixty-five eyes that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria were studied. Hill RBF 3.0 had the lowest mean and median absolute prediction errors (0.355 and 0.275, respectively) compared to all formulas. In subgroup analysis (26–28, >28–30, and >30 mm), significant difference was seen only in extremely long eyes (>30 mm). The Hill RBF 3.0 formula generated the maximum percentage of eyes with refractive errors within ±0.25, ±0.5, ±0.75, and ±1 D (46%, 76.2%, 89.9%, and 95.8%, respectively). Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating all the formulas exclusively in the myopic eyes. Hill RBF 3 was found to be superior in accuracy to all other formulas.

ophthalmology

Clearance and ultrafiltration of reused dialyzers.

A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions

Comparative Clinical Accuracy Analysis of the Newly Developed ZZ IOL and Four Existing IOL Formulas for Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

Error Sources and Correction of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Corneal Refractive Surgery

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack

Production of Fatty Livers by 4-Aminopyrazolo-(3,4-d)-Pyrimidine. Toxicological and Pathological Studies.∗

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery

A structurally stable realization for Jacobi elliptic functions

Prediction accuracy of IOL calculation formulas using the ASCRS online calculator for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

Prediction accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods after laser refractive surgery

[Chronic persistent HBsAG positive hepatitis in children. I. Subpopulations of T and B lymphocytes].

Predicting accuracy of spherical equivalent after cataract surgery using the online Zcalc calculator for toric IOLs

[Clinical Study of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Cornea Refractive Surgery].

Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery and radial keratotomy: Bayesian network meta-analysis

[Effects of a single intra-articular injection of antibiotics on cartilage structure in rabbits].

Choice of intraocular lens calculation formula for cataract patients with prior pars plana vitrectomy

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in high myopia

Effect of Posterior Keratometry and Corneal Radius Ratio on the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Formulas After Myopic LASIK/PRK

Retrospective assessment of accuracy of nine intraocular lens power calculation formulae in eyes with axial myopia