Limits...
Influence of the prediction error of the first eye undergoing cataract surgery on the refractive outcome of the fellow eye.

Gorodezky L, Mazinani BA, Plange N, Walter P, Wenzel M, Roessler G - Clin Ophthalmol (2014)

Bottom Line: According to the SRK/T formula, the postoperative refractive error of each eye was determined and compared with its fellow eye.Comparing the prediction error of an eye and its fellow eye, the error of the fellow eye was about half the value of the other.Our results imply that substitution of half of the prediction error of the first eye into the calculation of the second eye may be useful to reduce the prediction error in the second eye.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Petrisberg Eye Clinic, Trier, Germany ; Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH Technical University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In addition to measurement errors, individual anatomical conditions could be made responsible for unexpected prediction errors in the determination of the correct intraocular lens power for cataract surgery. Obviously, such anatomical conditions might be relevant for both eyes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the postoperative refractive error of the first eye has to be taken in account for the biometry of the second.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we included 670 eyes of 335 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens in both eyes. According to the SRK/T formula, the postoperative refractive error of each eye was determined and compared with its fellow eye.

Results: Of 670 eyes, 622 showed a postoperative refractive error within ±1.0 D (93%), whereas the prediction error was 0.5 D or less in 491 eyes (73%). The postoperative difference between both eyes was within 0.5 D in 71% and within 1.0 D in 93% of the eyes. Comparing the prediction error of an eye and its fellow eye, the error of the fellow eye was about half the value of the other.

Conclusion: Our results imply that substitution of half of the prediction error of the first eye into the calculation of the second eye may be useful to reduce the prediction error in the second eye. However, prospective studies should be initiated to demonstrate an improved accuracy for the second eye's intraocular lens power calculation by partial adjustment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Refractive error of one eye in comparison with its fellow eye.Notes: Number of patients with their intraindividual deviation; higher deviations are marked by darker background colors.Abbreviation: dpt, diopters.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4222621&req=5

f4-opth-8-2177: Refractive error of one eye in comparison with its fellow eye.Notes: Number of patients with their intraindividual deviation; higher deviations are marked by darker background colors.Abbreviation: dpt, diopters.

Mentions: Comparing the prediction error of both eyes, the deviation of the fellow eye was about half the value of the deviation of the first eye (Table 1). However, for eyes with a deviation of +0.5 D, the median of the deviation of the fellow eye was 0 D, whereas the median was −0.5 D in fellow eyes of eyes with a prediction error of −0.5 D. This was because all refraction values were rounded to 0.5 D steps. For this reason, Figure 4 shows the exact distribution of the prediction error values. For example, at a prediction error of +0.5 D for the first eye, the majority of deviation values for the fellow eye could be found at 0.0 and +0.5 D, whereas at −0.5 D, most of the values of the second eye were at −0.5 and 0.0 D, respectively (Figure 4).


Influence of the prediction error of the first eye undergoing cataract surgery on the refractive outcome of the fellow eye.

Gorodezky L, Mazinani BA, Plange N, Walter P, Wenzel M, Roessler G - Clin Ophthalmol (2014)

Refractive error of one eye in comparison with its fellow eye.Notes: Number of patients with their intraindividual deviation; higher deviations are marked by darker background colors.Abbreviation: dpt, diopters.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4222621&req=5

f4-opth-8-2177: Refractive error of one eye in comparison with its fellow eye.Notes: Number of patients with their intraindividual deviation; higher deviations are marked by darker background colors.Abbreviation: dpt, diopters.
Mentions: Comparing the prediction error of both eyes, the deviation of the fellow eye was about half the value of the deviation of the first eye (Table 1). However, for eyes with a deviation of +0.5 D, the median of the deviation of the fellow eye was 0 D, whereas the median was −0.5 D in fellow eyes of eyes with a prediction error of −0.5 D. This was because all refraction values were rounded to 0.5 D steps. For this reason, Figure 4 shows the exact distribution of the prediction error values. For example, at a prediction error of +0.5 D for the first eye, the majority of deviation values for the fellow eye could be found at 0.0 and +0.5 D, whereas at −0.5 D, most of the values of the second eye were at −0.5 and 0.0 D, respectively (Figure 4).

Bottom Line: According to the SRK/T formula, the postoperative refractive error of each eye was determined and compared with its fellow eye.Comparing the prediction error of an eye and its fellow eye, the error of the fellow eye was about half the value of the other.Our results imply that substitution of half of the prediction error of the first eye into the calculation of the second eye may be useful to reduce the prediction error in the second eye.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Petrisberg Eye Clinic, Trier, Germany ; Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH Technical University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In addition to measurement errors, individual anatomical conditions could be made responsible for unexpected prediction errors in the determination of the correct intraocular lens power for cataract surgery. Obviously, such anatomical conditions might be relevant for both eyes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the postoperative refractive error of the first eye has to be taken in account for the biometry of the second.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we included 670 eyes of 335 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens in both eyes. According to the SRK/T formula, the postoperative refractive error of each eye was determined and compared with its fellow eye.

Results: Of 670 eyes, 622 showed a postoperative refractive error within ±1.0 D (93%), whereas the prediction error was 0.5 D or less in 491 eyes (73%). The postoperative difference between both eyes was within 0.5 D in 71% and within 1.0 D in 93% of the eyes. Comparing the prediction error of an eye and its fellow eye, the error of the fellow eye was about half the value of the other.

Conclusion: Our results imply that substitution of half of the prediction error of the first eye into the calculation of the second eye may be useful to reduce the prediction error in the second eye. However, prospective studies should be initiated to demonstrate an improved accuracy for the second eye's intraocular lens power calculation by partial adjustment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus