Photosynthetic Characteristics of Two New Chlorophyll b-Less Rice Mutants

Zhi-fang Lin,C. Peng,G. Lin,Zhiying Ou,Chengwei Yang,Jing-liu Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025856311846

2003-03-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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.
CD20 Antigen May Be Expressed by Reactive or Lymphomatous Cells of Transformed Mycosis Fungoides: Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact

M. Jullie,M. Carlotti,A. Vivot,M. Beylot‐Barry,N. Ortonne,E. Frouin,A. Carlotti,A. de Muret,B. Balme,F. Franck,J. Merlio,B. Vergier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000091

2013-12-01

Abstract:Mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common primitive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, can undergo transformation in about 10% of cases. Transformed mycosis fungoides (T-MF) is often associated with the appearance of a CD20+ component. The aim of this study was to analyze whether such cells are reactive or lymphomatous and to evaluate their prognostic impact. Among 311 T-MFs from the French Cutaneous Lymphoma Study Group registry, we studied 148 cases. CD20 was expressed in 88 cases (59%). The proportion of CD20+ cells among T-MF lesions was <10% for 54 cases (38%), 10% to 49% for 71 cases (81%), and >50% for 17 cases (19%). We focused the study on 23 cases that contained >50% CD20+ cells. To evaluate the nature of the CD20+ component, we used immunohistochemistry (2 anti-CD20 antibodies, L26 and 7D1 clones, and 2 other anti–B-cell antigen antibodies, CD22 and PAX5) and a double-stain immunofluorescence technique (anti-CD20 and anti-CD3 antibodies). The clonality of B cells was studied by polymerase chain reaction. Three profiles were observed. In 15 of the 23 cases, the CD20+ cells were reactive. In 6 cases, CD20 protein was aberrantly expressed in T-MF lesions. Lastly, there were 2 composite lymphomas (T-MF infiltrate with a B-cell follicular lymphoma). In view of this series, we propose a simple algorithm to help pathologists evaluate the nature of the CD20+ component associated with T-MF. Although statistically not significant, there was a trend toward a worse prognosis in the presence of >50% CD20+ cells and of a nodular perifollicular pattern of this component.
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Laser Refractive Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Hui Chen,Xinyi Chen,Hanle Wang,Zhi Fang,Ke Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59487-1

IF: 4.6

2020-01-01

Scientific Reports

Abstract:There are an increasing number of people who have had refractive surgery now developing cataract. To compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after laser refractive surgery (photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis), a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted to identify comparative cohort studies and case series comparing different formulas: Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. Seven cohort studies and three observational studies including 260 eyes were identified. There were significant differences when Hoffer Q formula compared with SRK/T, Holladay 1. Holladay 1 formula produced less prediction error than SRK/T formula in double-K method. Hoffer Q formula performed best among SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas in total and single-K method. In eyes with previous data, it is recommended to choose double-K formula except SRK/T formula. In eyes with no previous data, Haigis-L formula is recommended if available, if the fourth formula is unavailable, single-k Hoffer Q is a good choice.
[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.
Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Wiktor Stopyra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16506

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Challenges in IOL power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery are caused by difficulties in accurately determining corneal refractive power and in predicting the effective lens position. Three factors contribute to inaccurate corneal refractive power estimation ‐ inaccurate measurement of anterior corneal curvature by standard keratometry or corneal topography, inaccurate calculation of total corneal power from the anterior corneal curvature can result from using the standardized value for the refractive index of cornea (1.3375) and finally changes in posterior corneal curvature. There are three categories of methods proposed based on the use of historical data acquired prior to the corneal refractive surgery (formulas using only historical data, no historical data or a combination of historical data and current data). The most frequently used methods of IOL power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery are discussed and their accuracy are compared. The latest studies and meta‐analyses in this area are presented. Despite availability of new measurement technologies and development of new IOL calculation formulas, further advances are needed to improve outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone corneal refractive surgery.

ophthalmology
Intraocular Lens Power Estimation by Accurate Ray Tracing for Eyes Underwent Previous Refractive Surgeries

Que Yang,Shanshan Wang,Kai Wang,Chunyu Zhang,Lu Zhang,Qingyu Meng,Qiudong Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2193057

2015-01-01

Abstract:For normal eyes without history of any ocular surgery, traditional equations for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power, such as SRK-T, Holladay, Higis, SRK-II, et al., all were relativley accurate. However, for eyes underwent refractive surgeries, such as LASIK, or eyes diagnosed as keratoconus, these equations may cause significant postoperative refractive error, which may cause poor satisfaction after cataract surgery. Although some methods have been carried out to solve this problem, such as Hagis-L equation([1]), or using preoperative data (data before LASIK) to estimate K value([2]), no precise equations were available for these eyes. Here, we introduced a novel intraocular lens power estimation method by accurate ray tracing with optical design software ZEMAX. Instead of using traditional regression formula, we adopted the exact measured corneal elevation distribution, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, axial length, and estimated effective lens plane as the input parameters. The calculation of intraocular lens power for a patient with keratoconus and another LASIK postoperative patient met very well with their visual capacity after cataract surgery.
[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.
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
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.
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.
Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia

Mujtaba A. Qazi,Irwin Y. Cua,Cynthia J. Roberts,Jay S. Pepose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.08.026

2007-01-01

Abstract:PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of Orbscan II slit-scanning videokeratography for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with previous photorefractive surgery for myopia.SETTING: Private practice, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.METHODS: Corneal power (K) was measured by manual keratometry, Placido-based videokeratography (Atlas), slit-scanning videokeratography (Orbscan II), and contact lens overrefraction in 21 post-photoablation eyes having cataract surgery. Postoperative data collected after phacoemulsification were used to back-calculate corneal power (BCK). The BCK values were statistically compared at 3.0 to 6.0 mm central Orbscan II curvature and power measurements, including total axial power, total tangential power, total mean power, and total optical power. Similar comparisons were made to Atlas curvature at the 0.0 to 10.0 mm zones.RESULTS: The mean corneal power after refractive surgery based on BCK values using the Holladay 2 formula (BCK H2) was 39.35 diopters (D) +/- 2.58 (SD). The mean manual value (40.52 +/- 1.95 D) and Atlas-based values were statistically higher than BCK H2 values (P<.001). The mean corneal power calculated from historical data was 39.33 +/- 2.70 D (P = .83 to BCK H2; n = 19) and from contact lens overrefraction, 41.38 +/- 3.11 D (P = .19; n = 5). Orbscan II parameters (n = 21) of the total mean power (3.0 mm, 39.10 +/- 2.63 D), total tangential power (3.0 mm, 39.11 +/- 2.60), total axial power (5.0 mm, 39.19 +/- 2.55 D), and total optical power (3.0 mm, 39.08 +/- 2.78 D; 4.0 mm, 39.39 +/- 2.76 D) were statistically similar to both the historical and BCK H2 values (P>.11). If used prospectively, 80.9% of eyes would have been within +/-0.50 D of the targeted refraction using a 4.0 mm total optical power, 76.2% using a 5.0 mm total axial power, and 42.1% using the historical method.CONCLUSION: The Orbscan II 5.0 mm total axial power and 4.0 mm total optical power can be used to more accurately predict true corneal power than the history-based method and may be particularly useful when pre-LASIK data are unavailable.

ophthalmology,surgery
Calculating intraocular lens power in anterior megalophthalmos: A case report

Jiancheng Mu,Yu Yang,Tianxu Xiong,Wei Fan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.926792

IF: 3.9

2022-08-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:Introduction We report a case of a man with cataract and anterior megalophthalmos (AM), in which some myopia was retained when calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power using the Haigis formula to avoid postoperative farsightedness. Case description A 59-year-old Chinese man was referred to our clinic for cataract surgery in his right eye. He had strong bilateral megalocornea, and his left eye had undergone surgery four times. After complete preoperative examinations and repeated biometry, the Haigis formula was used, and a 3-piece IOL was implanted with a target power of −1.97 D. At 1-year follow-up, the patient showed the best-corrected distance vision of 20/20 with the refraction of −1.50 DC × 160°, and the IOL was stable. Conclusion Our patient with anterior megalophthalmos showed postoperative hyperopia drift even though the Haigis formula was used as suggested in previous studies. To prevent farsightedness after surgery, some myopia should be retained when calculating IOL power. The Kane, Holladay II with AL adjustment, and Barrett Universal II formulas may be more accurate for calculating IOL power in such patients.

medicine, general & internal
Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures

Liangpin Li,Liyun Yuan,Kun Yang,Yanan Wu,Xia Hua,Yan Wang,Xiaoyong Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03164-0

2023-10-16

Abstract:Background: As the two most prevalent refractive surgeries in China, there is a substantial number of patients who have undergone Femtosecond Laser-assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures. However, there is still limited knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for these patients with a history of FS-LASIK or SMILE. Methods: A total of 100 eyes from 50 postoperative refractive surgery patients were included in this prospective cohort study, with 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone FS-LASIK and 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone SMILE. We utilized a theoretical surgical model to simulate the IOL implantation process in postoperative FS-LASIK and SMILE patients. Subsequently, we performed comprehensive biological measurements both before and after the surgeries, encompassing demographic information, corneal biometric parameters, and axial length. Various formulas, including the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, as a baseline, were employed to calculate IOL power for the patients. Results: The Barrett True K (BTK) formula, demonstrated an mean absolute error (AE) within 0.5 D for both FS-LASIK and SMILE groups (0.28 ± 0.25 D and 0.36 ± 0.24 D, respectively). Notably, the FS-LASIK group showed 82% of results differing by less than 0.25 D compared to preoperative BUII results. The Barrett True K No History (BTKNH) formula, which also incorporates measured posterior corneal curvature, performed similarly to BTK in both groups. Additionally, the Masket formula, relying on refractive changes based on empirical experience, displayed promising potential for IOL calculations in SMILE patients compared with BTK (p = 0.411). Conclusion: The study reveals the accuracy and stability of the BTK and BTKNH formulas for IOL power calculations in myopic FS-LASIK/SMILE patients. Moreover, the Masket formula shows encouraging results in SMILE patients. These findings contribute to enhancing the predictability and success of IOL power calculations in patients with a history of refractive surgery, providing valuable insights for clinical practice. Further research and larger sample sizes are warranted to validate and optimize the identified formulas for better patient outcomes.
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Nikolaus Luft,Jakob Siedlecki,Benedikt Schworm,Thomas C. Kreutzer,Wolfgang J. Mayer,Siegfried G. Priglinger,Martin Dirisamer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63118-0

IF: 4.6

2020-04-06

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Abstract With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference – a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [−0.36 ± 0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.

multidisciplinary sciences
The intraocular lens power calculation formula in high myopia and its verification

Jinhui Dai,Renyuan Chu,Guosheng Lu

2000-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To explore a new intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula which is more accurate in high myopia. Methods: 176 highly myopic eyes having undergone cataractous surgery were selected for study. A new formula was obtained based on the multiple regression analysis of the 176 eyes by SAS statistical software. 80 highly myopic eyes having undergone cataractous surgery were selected for verification. SRK-II formula was selected as contrast to verify the accuracy of the new formula. Results: The results showed that the new formula named SCDK formula was divided into two parts according to axial length. Compared with the SRK-II formula, the corrected value in the SCDK formula was more by -0.96 for axial length of 26 mm to 30 mm and -0.49 for axial length above 30 mm. In the verification group, the mean absolute refractive error and the prediction error greater than 2 D of the SRK-II formula is higher than that of SCDK formula. Conclusion: The SCDK formula is more accuracy than SRK-II formula in high myopia.
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.
Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta‐analysis and systematic review

Olga Reitblat,Ruti Sella,Rita Zlatkin,Irit Bahar,Tsahi T. Lerman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14470

2024-12-05

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Abstract:Background Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) poses significant challenges. While various formulas, including KCN‐specific ones, have been investigated, the optimal calculation method remains inconclusive. Methods The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023483119). PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with KCN. The percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the mean PE and the mean absolute error (MAE) were compared using a random effect model in Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Results Nine retrospective clinical studies were included, totalling 623 eyes and 25 calculation methods. The Barrett True‐K formula for KCN with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) achieved the highest ranking for the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, mean PE, and MAE, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 95%, 95%, 97% and 95%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that for the predictability rates within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the best ranking formulas were: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (85%) and BTK MPC (78%), respectively, in mild KCN; BTK with predicted posterior cornea (PPC) (85%) and MPC (88%), respectively, in moderate KCN; and Kane KCN for both metrics in severe KCN (84% and 95%, respectively). Conclusion The BTK MPC formula ranked highest across various metrics, suggesting its superior accuracy for IOL calculations in KCN. The optimal formulas may differ based on KCN severity, with current evidence suggesting potential advantage of Kane KCN for severe cases.

ophthalmology
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.
Assessment of the influence of keratometry on intraocular lens calculation formulas in long axial length eyes

Shengjie Yin,Chengyao Guo,Kunliang Qiu,Tsz Kin Ng,Yuancun Li,Yali Du,Bingyao Chen,Hongxi Wang,Mingzhi Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02322-5

Abstract:Purpose: Hyperopic surprises tend to occur in axial myopic eyes and other factors including corneal curvature have rarely been analyzed in cataract surgery, especially in eyes with long axial length (≥ 26.0 mm). Thus, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the influence of keratometry on four different formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for long eyes. Methods: Retrospective case series. A total of 180 eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 26.0 mm were divided into 3 keratometry (K) groups: K ≤ 42.0 D (Flat), K ≥ 46.0 D (Steep), 42.0 < K < 46.0 D (Average), and all the eyes were underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Rayner (Hove, UK) 920H IOL implantation. Prediction errors (PE) were compared between different formulas to assess the accuracy of different formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE. Results: The mean absolute error was higher for all evaluated formulas in Steep group (ranging from 0.66 D to 1.02 D) than the Flat (0.34 D to 0.67 D) and Average groups (0.40 D to 0.74D). The median absolute errors predicted by Olsen formula were significantly lower than that predicted by Haigis formula (0.42 D versus 0.85 D in Steep and 0.29 D versus 0.69 D in Average) in Steep and Average groups (P = 0.012, P < 0.001, respectively). And the Olsen formula demonstrated equal accuracy to the Barrett II formula in Flat and Average groups. The predictability of the SRK/T formula was affected by the AL and K, while the predictability of Olsen and Haigis formulas was affected by the AL only. Conclusions: Steep cornea has more influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation than the other corneal shape in long eyes. Overall, both the Olsen and Barrett Universal II formulas are recommended in long eyes with unusual keratometry.
New factor to improve reliability of the clinical history method for intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

Nicola Rosa,Maddalena De Bernardo,Maria Borrelli,Michele Lanza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.017

Abstract:Purpose: To determine whether the refractive error in an eye developing cataract after refractive surgery represents actual regression or is cataract related and whether the method to gather this information would allow the use of history-related formulas in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after refractive surgery. Setting: Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. Design: Case series. Methods: The refractive effects, axial length (AL), and mean keratotomy (K) values were evaluated in eyes before and 6 months after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia or for myopic or mixed astigmatism. Results: The study evaluated 257 eyes of 166 patients (93 women). Before surgery, there was a high correlation between refractive error and the product of AL and K (AL × K) (r(2) = 0.8213). In patients with refractive results close to emmetropia, the mean AL × K was 1005.91 ± 25.88 (SD), meaning that in the range of 954 and 1058, there was a 95% possibility that the patients were almost fully corrected. The following regression formula was obtained to calculate the amount of refractive error independent of cataract onset: Refractive error = -0.0157 × (AL × K) + 16.437. Conclusions: The regression formula determined whether the refraction depended on the onset of cataract and estimated the amount of undercorrection or overcorrection that occurred after refractive surgery, leading to improved estimation of the power of the IOL to be implanted. It may allow the use of history-related formulas in IOL power calculation for eyes that have had corneal refractive surgery.

Photosynthetic Characteristics of Two New Chlorophyll b-Less Rice Mutants

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

CD20 Antigen May Be Expressed by Reactive or Lymphomatous Cells of Transformed Mycosis Fungoides: Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Laser Refractive Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

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

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Intraocular Lens Power Estimation by Accurate Ray Tracing for Eyes Underwent Previous Refractive Surgeries

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

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

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

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

Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia

Calculating intraocular lens power in anterior megalophthalmos: A case report

Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

The intraocular lens power calculation formula in high myopia and its verification

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in high myopia

Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta‐analysis and systematic review

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

Assessment of the influence of keratometry on intraocular lens calculation formulas in long axial length eyes

New factor to improve reliability of the clinical history method for intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery