Hong Kong Eye Hospital Biometry Audit 2011 SN60WF IOL Dr. Rose Chan Resident, Hong Kong Eye Hospital
Acknowledgement Pre-admission and post-discharge (PAPD) nursing staff Ms Chiu Wai Yee Dr. Victoria Wong
Introduction Importance of auditing cataract surgery outcomes Most commonly performed surgery Increased patient expectation Adopt practices that promote the patient’s best interests and safety in performing cataract surgery
Possible complications in cataract surgery
Refractive surprise Diminished quality of life Binocular diplopia Altered depth perception Lens exchange Medicolegal implications
Purpose of audit Royal College of Ophthalmologists Cataract Surgery Guidelines 2010 “The accuracy of the biometry should be continuously audited by comparing the expected spherical equivalent with the achieved spherical equivalent.” Refraction within 1 diopter of target is considered to be satisfactory A benchmark standard of 85% is suggested
Our pledge last year Continuous audit for SA60AT IOL To determine optimized A constant for SN60WF
Methods Aug 2008 – July 2010 Patients implanted with SN60WF Biometry by PAPD NS, optometrists and orthoptists Machines used: Nidek Echoscan US-1800 (Nursing staff) ○ 142/274 (51.82%) Cannon KU-1 (Orthoptist) ○ 63/274 (22.99%) Quantel Medical Axis II (Optometrist/orthopist) ○ 69 (25.18%)
SRK/T formula regardless of axial length Uneventful phacoemulsification + IOL Major reasons for exclusion ○ Combined surgeries ○ No refraction available ○ Complicated surgery
Results 528 patients had SN60WF implanted 274 eyes of 265 patients were included into audit Female : Male 149:116 Left : Right 125:149 Age years (range, 28-96) Axial length mm (range, 21.1 – 29.94) 34 phaco surgeons
Refractive outcomes Mean post-op spherical equivalent (SE) – D (range, to 2.0) Pearson correlation r = P = 0.735
Refractive outcomes Axial Length (mm) <22 22 – 26 >26 No. of eyes Difference in SE from target (D) (-2.42 to 0.7) (-3.01 to 2.5) (-3.22 to 3.71) One-way ANOVA: p=0.366
Comparison of outcomes Mean target SE -0.67D (range, to 0.72) Mean post-op SE D (range, to 2.0) p< Mean difference between target and post-op SE: D (-3.22 to 3.7) Calculation based on surgeon’s chosen target refraction Within ± 1 D of target SE 64.6 % (177/274)
Factor analysis SRK/T formula used in all patients Calculation based on surgeon’s chosen target refraction Comparing proportion of patients within target refraction range (+/- 1D of target), and those not within target range Chi-square test Sex p=0.744 Age ( 80 years old) p=0.798 Laterality of eyes p=0.733 Axial length ( 26mm) P=0.994
Factor analysis Biometry machine performance Chi-square test p=0.017 Axis IICannonNidek Within +/- 1D of target refraction 43 (62.3%)33 (52.4%)103 (72.5%) Not within target refraction range 26 (37.7%)30 (47.6%)39 (27.5%) Total
Factor analysis Nidek machine performed better ?true machine difference ?related to operating staff performance Limited by relative small number of cases done by Axis/Cannon machine
Factor analysis Biometry staff performance by group Chi-square test p=0.002 NursingOptometristOrthoptist Within +/- 1D of target refraction 97 (72.4%)50 (68.5%)32 (47.8%) Out of target refraction range 37 (27.6%)23 (31.5%)35 (52.2%) Total
Discussion Biometry performance significantly better for PAPD nursing staff Nidek machine Majority of biometry service done by nursing staff using Nidek machine Most experienced More difficult cases are diverted to orthoptist Account for lower accuracy May improve with availability of IOL Master
Discussion Re-calculation of optimized A-constant Using Dr Warren Hill Constant Calculation spreadsheet Modified optimized A-constant 118.5
Discussion Mean target refraction of our surgeons: -0.67D SN60WF Aspheric Reduced spherical aberration best when emmetropic Surgeons are suggested to aim near emmetropic while using SN60WF
Recommendations To concentrate biometry service by experienced staff To aim emmetropia for SN60WF Choose target refraction between 0 and -0.5D To repeat audit next year To refine A-constant if similar outcome
Thank You