Cargando…
Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes
INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to observe the potential refractive prediction error based on alternative A-scan ultrasound and fellow-eye biometry for phacovitrectomy in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) eyes. METHODS: Phakic macula-off RRD eyes without axial length (AL) mea...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34878642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00439-x |
_version_ | 1784635439541387264 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Rui Li, Hongrong Li, Qingchen |
author_facet | Liu, Rui Li, Hongrong Li, Qingchen |
author_sort | Liu, Rui |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to observe the potential refractive prediction error based on alternative A-scan ultrasound and fellow-eye biometry for phacovitrectomy in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) eyes. METHODS: Phakic macula-off RRD eyes without axial length (AL) measurements obtained using IOLMaster were included. Vitrectomy without lens extraction was performed for RRD repair. Preoperative AL was measured using alternative A-scan ultrasound (AL-US). Postoperative AL was obtained in eyes with silicone oil tamponade (AL-SO) and preoperative fellow-eye biometry (AL-FE) using IOLMaster. Other eyes that faced the same preoperative situation but underwent phacovitrectomy based on fellow-eye biometry were recruited as controls. RESULTS: AL-US, AL–FE, and AL-SO were 25.39 ± 2.14 mm, 25.85 ± 2.16 mm and 26.08 ± 2.53 mm, respectively. The Bland–Altman agreement among AL-US, AL-FE and AL-SO was good (95.5%, 21/22 of cases were in the LoA). The mean IOL power calculated using AL-US (Power-US), AL-FE (Power-FE) and AL-SO (Power-SO) was 16.81 ± 7.19 D, 14.74 ± 6.95 D and 13.54 ± 8.32 D, respectively. The difference between AL-US and AL-SO was significant (P < 0.05), while that between AL-FE and AL-SO was not (P > 0.05). The difference between Power-US and Power-SO was significant (P < 0.05), while that between Power-FE and Power-SO was not (P > 0.05). Nine eyes underwent phacovitrectomy based on fellow-eye biometry and had a final postoperative myopic shift of 0.64 ± 0.78 D. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative A-scan ultrasound led to a significant difference in AL and a prediction error in IOL power, while fellow-eye biometry provided similar results to silicone oil-filled eyes after RRD repair. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8770769 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87707692022-02-02 Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes Liu, Rui Li, Hongrong Li, Qingchen Ophthalmol Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to observe the potential refractive prediction error based on alternative A-scan ultrasound and fellow-eye biometry for phacovitrectomy in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) eyes. METHODS: Phakic macula-off RRD eyes without axial length (AL) measurements obtained using IOLMaster were included. Vitrectomy without lens extraction was performed for RRD repair. Preoperative AL was measured using alternative A-scan ultrasound (AL-US). Postoperative AL was obtained in eyes with silicone oil tamponade (AL-SO) and preoperative fellow-eye biometry (AL-FE) using IOLMaster. Other eyes that faced the same preoperative situation but underwent phacovitrectomy based on fellow-eye biometry were recruited as controls. RESULTS: AL-US, AL–FE, and AL-SO were 25.39 ± 2.14 mm, 25.85 ± 2.16 mm and 26.08 ± 2.53 mm, respectively. The Bland–Altman agreement among AL-US, AL-FE and AL-SO was good (95.5%, 21/22 of cases were in the LoA). The mean IOL power calculated using AL-US (Power-US), AL-FE (Power-FE) and AL-SO (Power-SO) was 16.81 ± 7.19 D, 14.74 ± 6.95 D and 13.54 ± 8.32 D, respectively. The difference between AL-US and AL-SO was significant (P < 0.05), while that between AL-FE and AL-SO was not (P > 0.05). The difference between Power-US and Power-SO was significant (P < 0.05), while that between Power-FE and Power-SO was not (P > 0.05). Nine eyes underwent phacovitrectomy based on fellow-eye biometry and had a final postoperative myopic shift of 0.64 ± 0.78 D. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative A-scan ultrasound led to a significant difference in AL and a prediction error in IOL power, while fellow-eye biometry provided similar results to silicone oil-filled eyes after RRD repair. Springer Healthcare 2021-12-08 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8770769/ /pubmed/34878642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00439-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Liu, Rui Li, Hongrong Li, Qingchen Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title | Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title_full | Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title_fullStr | Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title_short | Differences in Axial Length and IOL Power Based on Alternative A-Scan or Fellow-Eye Biometry in Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Eyes |
title_sort | differences in axial length and iol power based on alternative a-scan or fellow-eye biometry in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment eyes |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34878642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00439-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liurui differencesinaxiallengthandiolpowerbasedonalternativeascanorfelloweyebiometryinmaculaoffrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmenteyes AT lihongrong differencesinaxiallengthandiolpowerbasedonalternativeascanorfelloweyebiometryinmaculaoffrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmenteyes AT liqingchen differencesinaxiallengthandiolpowerbasedonalternativeascanorfelloweyebiometryinmaculaoffrhegmatogenousretinaldetachmenteyes |