Poster Number: P90 Category: Intraocular Surgery (Cataract and Refractive) Optimization of IOL Power Calculation Constants: By Unit or by Surgeon? Nathaniel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Anterior Segment OCT Angle and Vault Analysis After Implantable Collamer Lens  Implantation in Patients With High Myopia Arturo Ramirez-Miranda M.D. Alejandro.
Advertisements

Accuracy of Predicted Refractive Error in Resident-Performed Cataract Surgery Using Partial Coherence Interferometry Nickolas P. Katsoulakis, M.D., Paul.
A simple and accurate method of alignment for toric intraocular lens implantation using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT). Kazuno Negishi,
Long-Term Follow-Up of Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation for Keratoconus Alejandro Navas, MD, MSc, Martha Jaimes, MD, Jesús Cabral, MD, Arturo Ramirez.
Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Ayr, Scotland
In-the-Bag Toric IOL for Correction of Astigmatism in Keratoconus and after Corneal Surgery Bart T.H. van Dooren, M.D., Ph.D Ilse E.M.A. Mol, M.D. Department.
Development of an Apple iPhone IOL Calculator Application for Cataract Surgery Rony Gelman, MD 1, Richard E. Braunstein, MD 1 1 Department of Ophthalmology,
Progressive Multifocal Intraocular Lens G. Rubiolini M.D. Italy Disclosure of finanacial interest Author's research is partially funded.
IOL power calculation after refractive surgery A. Peyman, MD.
Anterior Chamber Depth, Iridocorneal Angle Width, and Intraocular Pressure Changes After Phacoemulsification: Narrow vs Open Iridocorneal Angles Huang.
1 Clinical Performance of the Crystalens® AO Guy M. Kezirian, MD, FACS.
Placement of Toric Intraocular Lens and the Long-term Change in the Axis of Corneal Astigmatism after Sutureless Cataract Extraction by Phacoemulsification.
Hong Kong Eye Hospital Biometry Audit 2012 SN60WF IOL Dr. Rose Chan
Phacoemulsification in eyes with previous anterior chamber phakic IOL surgery Walton Nosé, MD, PhD 1,2 Adriana dos Santos Forseto, MD 1 Mariana Ávila,
Hong Kong Eye Hospital Ms Frenchy Chiu Dr Victoria Wong IOL master
Neeti Parikh, MD Fuxiang Zhang, MD Department of Ophthalmology Henry Ford Hospital A Comparison Of Patient Satisfaction With Modified Monovision Versus.
Hong Kong Eye Hospital Biometry Audit 2011 SN60WF IOL Dr. Rose Chan Resident, Hong Kong Eye Hospital.
Biometric Accuracy in High Hypermetropes and Myopes
Using the ASCRS Post-Refractive Surgery IOL Calculator: A Retrospective Review Amit Patel MRCOphth, Achyut Mukherjee MRCOphth, Vinod Kumar FRCSEd(Ophth)
INTRAOCULAR LENS POWER CALCULATION BY IMMERSION A-SCAN BIOMETRY VERSUS CONTACT A-SCAN BIOMETRY MEASUREMENTS BEFORE CATARACT SURGERY Burak Bilgin**, M.D.,
Astigmatism management with toric intraocular lenses in cataract patients Adriano Guarnieri 1-2, Luis W. Lu 3-4, Alfonso Arias- Puente INCIVI, Madrid,
Sonia Yoo, MD 1 Fernanda Piccoli, MD 1 Artur Schmitt, MD 1 Takeshi Ide, MD 1 Tsontcho Ianchulev, MD 2 Authors have no financial interest in this subject.
Endothelial Dystrophy Association with Hyperopia Glenn W. Thompson, M.D. Timothy P. Page, M.D. Authors have no financial interest.
Effect of Aspherical Intraocular Lens on Blue-on-Yellow Perimetry  No eye had intraoperative complications. At 12 months after surgery, all the lenses.
Jamie Ng, Marcus Tan, Lennard Thean National University Health System
Reproducibility of Optical Measurements in Pseudophakic eyes Using Double-Pass Measurement System St Thomas Hospital, London Anish Dhital, David Spalton,
Partial Coherence Interferometry Failure Rate in a Teaching Hospital Leslie A. Wei 1,2, BA, Nickolaus P. Katsoulakis 2, MD, Theodoros Filippopoulos 3,
The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES.
Adriana S. Forseto1, MD Walton Nosé1,2, MD
IOL Calculations Based on Partial Biometry in Humanitarian Missions Joseph Schmitz, MD Kimberly Davis, MD, FACS Scott McClatchey, MD The authors have no.
Sherman W. Reeves, MD, MPH 1,3,4 ; Jacob A. Kozisek, OD 1,2 ; Noumia Cloutier-Gill, OD 1,2 ; David R. Hardten, MD 1,2,3,4 Accuracy of Scheimpflug Imaging.
Comparative Study of the Aspheric Akreos Adapt AO IOL Versus the Spherical Akreos Adapt IOL Maghizh Anandan Martin Leyland.
Post-LASIK Intraocular Lens Power Adjustment Nomogram Joseph Diehl Kevin Miller, MD Jules Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine.
Comparison of visual function following piggyback implantation of Acrysof ReSTOR intraocular lenses with Tecnis multifocal ZM900 intraocular lenses. Rodrigo.
Inadvertent Insertion of an Opposite- Side Tecnis ZM900 Multifocal IOL Wilson Takashi Hida, M.D. Celso Takashi Nakano; Jonathan Lake;
Minimizing Risk in Visian ICL Implantation.
Simulated Experiments on IOL Power Calculation Using Anterior Segment OCT Dong Hyun Jo, M.D., 1,2 Mee Kum Kim, M.D., 1,2 Won Ryang Wee, M.D. 1,2 1 Department.
Liquifaction Method and Extent of Posterior Capsule Opacification: Two-Year Follow-up Marie Kalfertova, Mariya Burova, Pavel Rozsival, Nada Jiraskova Nada.
John P Berdahl M.D.* David R. Hardten M.D., F.A.C.S.* *No relevant financial disclosures.
Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic Vinohrady Teaching Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic M. Vokrojova MD, M. Vokrojova MD, D. Sivekova MD,
0 Femtosecond-Laser Assisted Cataract Surgery: Is it living up to the hype? 117 th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology Press Briefing.
Intraocular Lens Outcomes: Comparison of Technologies and Formulas Carolina Eyecare Physicians, LLC Research Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology Storm.
J. E. “Jay” McDonald, II M.D. McDonald Eye Associates Fayetteville, Arkansas Financial disclosure: Bausch and Lomb – Consultant; Addition.
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages (April 2008)
Late In-the-bag Intraocular Lens Dislocation:
Premium IOL May be one way to achieve the visual goals of selected patients I describe some pearls for premium IOL implantation to help ensure that we.
Postoperative Refraction and Patient Satisfaction after Bilateral Implantation of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses Robert Cionni, MD Financial.
Hayashi Eye Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
Corneal Pachymetry in Prediction of Refraction After Cataract Surgery
Financial Disclosure Drs. Nix and Awdeh have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Yoo has received consultant, research, and travel reimbursement.
Refractive outcomes of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry versus optical biometry alone for intraocular lens power calculation Zina Zhang MD1, Logan.
The authors have no financial interest.
Aug 11, 2017 Comparison of predictive accuracy on Partial coherence interferometry (PCI) and swpt-source optical coherence tomographry (SS-OCT) Choun-Ki.
Effect of Axial Length Measurement Method on Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery: Real World Comparison of Partial Coherence Interferometry and Immersion.
Eye clinic of the 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Nienke Visser, Tos T.J.M. Berendschot, Rudy M.M.A. Nuijts
Prospective Study Comparing Outcomes of Torsional versus Traditional Phacoemulsification Systems on Dense Cataracts Bonnie An Henderson MD, Kelly J Grimes.
Early Experience with Descemet’s Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Combined with Phacoemulsification: Clinical and Refractive Outcome University.
Sarosh A. Janjua MD1, Sandra L. Cremers MD FACS1
Comparison of corneal powers obtained from four different devices
Comparison of Autokeratometry and Manual Keratometry
Mohamed A Guenena, MD Helga P Sandoval, MD, MSCR Kerry D Solomon, MD
IN THE NAME OF GOD.
Results of corrective surgery: secondary lens implantation at a cataract surgery training centre Mehul Shah,shreya shah, adway appalware,pramod upadhyay,
versus 2.75mm Incision Phacoemulsification
Factors Potentially Affecting the Accuracy of Methods to Calculate Effective Refractive Power After Keratorefractive Surgery Helga P Sandoval, MD, MSCR,
Anand K Shah MD1 Neda Shamie MD1 Paul Phillips MD1 Mark A Terry MD1,2*
Visual Outcomes and Satisfaction with Toric IOL Versus Monofocal IOL
International Vision Correction Research Centre
Michael Goodman, Alexandra Paul and Andrew Hsu
Presentation transcript:

Poster Number: P90 Category: Intraocular Surgery (Cataract and Refractive) Optimization of IOL Power Calculation Constants: By Unit or by Surgeon? Nathaniel E Knox Cartwright, MA, MRCOphth Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, UK Financial Disclosure: None

Background 3rd generation IOL power calculation formulae incorporate constants SRK/ T: A constant Hoffer Q: predicted anterior chamber depth Holladay: surgeon factor Optimisation of these constants corrects systematic errors in predicted postoperative refraction However the process of optimisation is relatively complex perhaps discouraging many from doing so instead relying on values calculated by others

Purpose This single centre study set out to determine whether optimised IOL power calculation formulae differ between surgeons operating in the same unit

Method I Inclusion criteria Prospectively entered perioperative data (Medisoft electronic patient record) Implantation of L161AO Sofport or Akreos Fit (both Bausch & Lomb) intraocular lens (IOL) Surgeons implanting ≥100 of either IOL Preoperative IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec) biometry Postoperative subjective refraction Final corrected distance visual acuity ≥6/12 Exclusion criteria Combined surgery (e.g. phacovitrectomy) Complicated surgery

Method II For every eye and each of the Hoffer Q, Holladay and SRK/T formulae the constants predicting emmetropia were calculated using Freemat 3.6 Optimised constants calculated using the method recommended by Carl Zeiss Meditec Mean of personalised constants excluding values greater the 2 standard deviations from the overall population mean Statistical analysis R 2.8.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) software used Differences between the manufacturers and optimised formula constants compared using the 2 sided paired t test Differences between surgeons compared using the ANOVA test p < 0.05 statistically significant

Results 6314 operations met inclusion criteria 4390 L161AO Sofport IOLs 15 surgeons 1924 Akreos Fit IOLs 4 surgeons No statistically significant differences between surgeons for optimised constants for any formula for either IOL type ANOVA test, all p >> 0.05

Nominal Holladay A Constant 118.0 Surgeon Surgeon Sofport AO Akreos Fit Nominal Holladay A Constant 118.0 Optimised SRK/T A Constant 118.69 * 118.45 * * paired t-test p < 0.05

Sofport AO Akreos Fit Nominal Hoffer Q pACD 4.97 Optimised pACD 5.12 * Surgeon Surgeon Sofport AO Akreos Fit Nominal Hoffer Q pACD 4.97 Optimised pACD 5.12 * 5.03 * * paired t-test p < 0.05

Nominal Holladay Surgeon Factor 1.22 Sofport AO Akreos Fit Nominal Holladay Surgeon Factor 1.22 Optimised SRK/T Surgeon Factor 1.67 * 1.51 * * paired t-test p < 0.05

Conclusions Like previous studies have shown, IOL power calculation formula constants optimised for the IOLMaster differ significantly from those recommended by the manufacturer However differences between surgeons operating in the same unit were not significant This reinforces the need for IOL constant optimisation and demonstrates that doing so is practical, even in large multisurgeon centres

Nathaniel KNOX CARTWRIGHT Contact Nathaniel KNOX CARTWRIGHT n.knoxcartwright@gmail.com