Cargando…

Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?

PURPOSE: Optimization of lens constants is a critically important step that improves refractive outcomes significantly. Whether lens constants optimized for the entire range of axial length would perform equally well in short eyes is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze whe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shrivastava, Ankur K, Nayak, Swatishree, Mahobia, Ashish, Anto, Mary, Kacher, Rajaram, Kumar, Ajay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34427203
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_63_21
_version_ 1784589738955505664
author Shrivastava, Ankur K
Nayak, Swatishree
Mahobia, Ashish
Anto, Mary
Kacher, Rajaram
Kumar, Ajay
author_facet Shrivastava, Ankur K
Nayak, Swatishree
Mahobia, Ashish
Anto, Mary
Kacher, Rajaram
Kumar, Ajay
author_sort Shrivastava, Ankur K
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Optimization of lens constants is a critically important step that improves refractive outcomes significantly. Whether lens constants optimized for the entire range of axial length would perform equally well in short eyes is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze whether lens constants need to be optimized specifically for short eyes. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Eighty-six eyes of eighty-six patients were included. Optical biometry with IOLMaster 500 was done in all cases and lens constants were optimized using built-in software. Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae were compared using optimized constants. Mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction, of each formula were analyzed using manufacturer’s, ULIB, and optimized lens constants. MedAE was compared across various constants used by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and among optimized constants by Friedman’s test. Cochran’s Q test compared the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ± 2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Optimized constant of Haigis had significantly lower MedAE (P < 0.00001) as compared to manufacturers. However, there was no statistically significant difference between ULIB and optimized constants. Postoptimization, there was no statistically significant difference among all formulae. CONCLUSION: Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes gives no added advantage over those optimized for the entire range of axial length.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8544056
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85440562021-10-29 Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential? Shrivastava, Ankur K Nayak, Swatishree Mahobia, Ashish Anto, Mary Kacher, Rajaram Kumar, Ajay Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: Optimization of lens constants is a critically important step that improves refractive outcomes significantly. Whether lens constants optimized for the entire range of axial length would perform equally well in short eyes is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze whether lens constants need to be optimized specifically for short eyes. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Eighty-six eyes of eighty-six patients were included. Optical biometry with IOLMaster 500 was done in all cases and lens constants were optimized using built-in software. Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae were compared using optimized constants. Mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction, of each formula were analyzed using manufacturer’s, ULIB, and optimized lens constants. MedAE was compared across various constants used by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and among optimized constants by Friedman’s test. Cochran’s Q test compared the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ± 2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Optimized constant of Haigis had significantly lower MedAE (P < 0.00001) as compared to manufacturers. However, there was no statistically significant difference between ULIB and optimized constants. Postoptimization, there was no statistically significant difference among all formulae. CONCLUSION: Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes gives no added advantage over those optimized for the entire range of axial length. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-09 2021-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8544056/ /pubmed/34427203 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_63_21 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Shrivastava, Ankur K
Nayak, Swatishree
Mahobia, Ashish
Anto, Mary
Kacher, Rajaram
Kumar, Ajay
Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title_full Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title_fullStr Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title_short Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?
title_sort optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: is it essential?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34427203
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_63_21
work_keys_str_mv AT shrivastavaankurk optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential
AT nayakswatishree optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential
AT mahobiaashish optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential
AT antomary optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential
AT kacherrajaram optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential
AT kumarajay optimizinglensconstantsspecificallyforshorteyesisitessential