Limits...
A comparison of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-myopic LASI K/PRK intraocular lens (IOL) calculator and the Ocular MD IOL calculator.

Demill DL, Moshirfar M, Neuffer MC, Hsu M, Sikder S - Clin Ophthalmol (2011)

Bottom Line: The predicted IOL powers of the Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS averages were compared.There was no statistically significant difference between the methods in absolute IOL prediction error, variance, or the percentage of eyes with outcomes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.Our methods using combinations of these averages which, when compared with the individual averages, showed a trend of decreased mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute upper limit of IOL prediction error, and variance, while increasing the percentage of outcomes within ±0.50 D.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: To compare the average values of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and Ocular MD intraocular lens (IOL) calculators to assess their accuracy in predicting IOL power in patients with prior laser-in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy.

Methods: In this retrospective study, data from 21 eyes with previous LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and subsequent cataract surgery was used in an IOL calculator comparison. The predicted IOL powers of the Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS averages were compared. The Ocular MD average (composed of an average of Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis) and the all calculator average (composed of an average of Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS) were also compared. Primary outcome measures were mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error, variance in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.

Results: The Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis averages produced mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors of 0.57 and -0.61 diopters (D), respectively, which were significantly larger than errors from the ASCRS, Ocular MD, and all calculator averages (0.11, -0.02, and 0.02 D, respectively, all P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the methods in absolute IOL prediction error, variance, or the percentage of eyes with outcomes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.

Conclusion: The ASCRS average was more accurate in predicting IOL power than the Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis averages alone. Our methods using combinations of these averages which, when compared with the individual averages, showed a trend of decreased mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute upper limit of IOL prediction error, and variance, while increasing the percentage of outcomes within ±0.50 D.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Boxplot of IOL power prediction errors with different methods.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198415&req=5

f1-opth-5-1409: Boxplot of IOL power prediction errors with different methods.

Mentions: The mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors for the ASCRS (0.11 D), Ocular MD (−0.02 D), and all calculator (0.02 D) averages showed increased accuracy when compared with Ocular MD SRK/T (0.57 D) and Ocular MD Haigis (−0.61 D), as shown in Figures 1 and 2 (all P < 0.05). Unlike the other methods, the Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors were both significantly different from zero (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Although statistical significance was not found due in part to our small sample size, both the Ocular MD average and the all calculator average showed a clear trend of increased accuracy in mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error, variance, and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D when compared with the individual averages (ASCRS, Ocular MD SRK/T, and Ocular MD Haigis, see Table 2).


A comparison of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-myopic LASI K/PRK intraocular lens (IOL) calculator and the Ocular MD IOL calculator.

Demill DL, Moshirfar M, Neuffer MC, Hsu M, Sikder S - Clin Ophthalmol (2011)

Boxplot of IOL power prediction errors with different methods.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3198415&req=5

f1-opth-5-1409: Boxplot of IOL power prediction errors with different methods.
Mentions: The mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors for the ASCRS (0.11 D), Ocular MD (−0.02 D), and all calculator (0.02 D) averages showed increased accuracy when compared with Ocular MD SRK/T (0.57 D) and Ocular MD Haigis (−0.61 D), as shown in Figures 1 and 2 (all P < 0.05). Unlike the other methods, the Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors were both significantly different from zero (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Although statistical significance was not found due in part to our small sample size, both the Ocular MD average and the all calculator average showed a clear trend of increased accuracy in mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error, variance, and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D when compared with the individual averages (ASCRS, Ocular MD SRK/T, and Ocular MD Haigis, see Table 2).

Bottom Line: The predicted IOL powers of the Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS averages were compared.There was no statistically significant difference between the methods in absolute IOL prediction error, variance, or the percentage of eyes with outcomes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.Our methods using combinations of these averages which, when compared with the individual averages, showed a trend of decreased mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute upper limit of IOL prediction error, and variance, while increasing the percentage of outcomes within ±0.50 D.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: John A Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: To compare the average values of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and Ocular MD intraocular lens (IOL) calculators to assess their accuracy in predicting IOL power in patients with prior laser-in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy.

Methods: In this retrospective study, data from 21 eyes with previous LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and subsequent cataract surgery was used in an IOL calculator comparison. The predicted IOL powers of the Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS averages were compared. The Ocular MD average (composed of an average of Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis) and the all calculator average (composed of an average of Ocular MD SRK/T, Ocular MD Haigis, and ASCRS) were also compared. Primary outcome measures were mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error, variance in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.

Results: The Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis averages produced mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors of 0.57 and -0.61 diopters (D), respectively, which were significantly larger than errors from the ASCRS, Ocular MD, and all calculator averages (0.11, -0.02, and 0.02 D, respectively, all P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the methods in absolute IOL prediction error, variance, or the percentage of eyes with outcomes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D.

Conclusion: The ASCRS average was more accurate in predicting IOL power than the Ocular MD SRK/T and Ocular MD Haigis averages alone. Our methods using combinations of these averages which, when compared with the individual averages, showed a trend of decreased mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute upper limit of IOL prediction error, and variance, while increasing the percentage of outcomes within ±0.50 D.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus