Cargando…
Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique
PURPOSE: To analyze visual outcomes and accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing flanged intrascleral IOL fixation. DESIGN: Case Series. SUBJECTS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone secondary IOL placement using flanged...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10029932/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36960323 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S389325 |
_version_ | 1784910246238486528 |
---|---|
author | Malach, Daniel S Guest, John Michael Adam, Christopher Joffe, Jonah Le, Kim Kim, Chaesik Lin, Xihui |
author_facet | Malach, Daniel S Guest, John Michael Adam, Christopher Joffe, Jonah Le, Kim Kim, Chaesik Lin, Xihui |
author_sort | Malach, Daniel S |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To analyze visual outcomes and accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing flanged intrascleral IOL fixation. DESIGN: Case Series. SUBJECTS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone secondary IOL placement using flanged intrascleral fixation technique. METHODS: Retrospective chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent based on manifest refraction. RESULTS: Visual acuity improved from 20/577 to 20/58. Overall, the actual refraction was 0.06 D more myopic than predicted. Holladay 2, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) and Barrett Universal II resulted in mild myopic surprise (−0.55, −0.18 and −0.20 D). Haigis and Hill-RBF (Radial Basis Function) resulted in mild hyperopic surprise (+0.28 and +0.28 D). Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 were the most accurate (−0.02D and −0.08 D). CONCLUSION: Flanged intrascleral IOL fixation improved vision even in patients with other posterior segment pathologies. The effective lens positioning is likely similar to in-the-bag positioning. Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas with in-the-bag calculations were the most accurate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10029932 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100299322023-03-22 Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique Malach, Daniel S Guest, John Michael Adam, Christopher Joffe, Jonah Le, Kim Kim, Chaesik Lin, Xihui Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: To analyze visual outcomes and accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in predicting postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing flanged intrascleral IOL fixation. DESIGN: Case Series. SUBJECTS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone secondary IOL placement using flanged intrascleral fixation technique. METHODS: Retrospective chart review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and postoperative spherical equivalent based on manifest refraction. RESULTS: Visual acuity improved from 20/577 to 20/58. Overall, the actual refraction was 0.06 D more myopic than predicted. Holladay 2, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) and Barrett Universal II resulted in mild myopic surprise (−0.55, −0.18 and −0.20 D). Haigis and Hill-RBF (Radial Basis Function) resulted in mild hyperopic surprise (+0.28 and +0.28 D). Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 were the most accurate (−0.02D and −0.08 D). CONCLUSION: Flanged intrascleral IOL fixation improved vision even in patients with other posterior segment pathologies. The effective lens positioning is likely similar to in-the-bag positioning. Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas with in-the-bag calculations were the most accurate. Dove 2023-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10029932/ /pubmed/36960323 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S389325 Text en © 2023 Malach et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Malach, Daniel S Guest, John Michael Adam, Christopher Joffe, Jonah Le, Kim Kim, Chaesik Lin, Xihui Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title | Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title_full | Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title_fullStr | Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title_full_unstemmed | Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title_short | Intraocular Lens Formula Comparison of Flanged Intrascleral Intraocular Lens Fixation with Double Needle Technique |
title_sort | intraocular lens formula comparison of flanged intrascleral intraocular lens fixation with double needle technique |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10029932/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36960323 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S389325 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malachdaniels intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT guestjohnmichael intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT adamchristopher intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT joffejonah intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT lekim intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT kimchaesik intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique AT linxihui intraocularlensformulacomparisonofflangedintrascleralintraocularlensfixationwithdoubleneedletechnique |