Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short eyes

Shruti Sudhakar, Darren C. Hill, Tonya King, Ingrid Scott, Gautam Mishra, Brett B. Ernst, Seth Pantanelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of preoperative biometry-based formulas to intraoperative aberrometry (IA)with respect to predicting refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in short eyes. Setting: Private practice and community-based ambulatory surgery center. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Eyes with an axial length (AL)shorter than 22.1 mm underwent cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL)implantation. The predicted residual refractive error was calculated preoperatively using Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using IA. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE)was compared with the predicted SE to evaluate the accuracy of each aforementioned method. Results: Fifty-one eyes from 38 patients met criteria to be included in the analysis. Without optimizing the formulas specifically for short eyes, the mean numerical errors (MNEs)associated with Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, and IA were −0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.30 to 0.13), −0.14 (95% CI, −0.35 to 0.07), +0.26 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.47), +0.11 (95% CI, −0.10 to 0.32), +0.07 (95% CI, −0.14 to 0.28), and +0.00 (95% CI, −0.21 to 0.21), respectively (P <.001). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D)of the predicted SE were 49.0%, 43.1%, 52.9%, 52.9%, 60.8%, and 58.8%, respectively (P =.06). The prediction outcomes from IA were statistically better than Haigis, but not other formulas. When formula and IA predictions differed by 0.5 D or more, IA's ability to recommend a more emmetropic outcome was no better than chance (50%). Conclusions: Intraoperative aberrometry is not significantly different from the best preoperative biometry-based methods available for IOL power selection in short eyes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)719-724
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Volume45
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Aberrometry
Biometry
Intraocular Lenses
Confidence Intervals
Eye Axial Length
Intraocular Lens Implantation
Refractive Errors
Cataract Extraction
Private Practice
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Cataract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

@article{02d87127a68647479ada335597a54441,
title = "Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short eyes",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the accuracy of preoperative biometry-based formulas to intraoperative aberrometry (IA)with respect to predicting refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in short eyes. Setting: Private practice and community-based ambulatory surgery center. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Eyes with an axial length (AL)shorter than 22.1 mm underwent cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL)implantation. The predicted residual refractive error was calculated preoperatively using Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using IA. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE)was compared with the predicted SE to evaluate the accuracy of each aforementioned method. Results: Fifty-one eyes from 38 patients met criteria to be included in the analysis. Without optimizing the formulas specifically for short eyes, the mean numerical errors (MNEs)associated with Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, and IA were −0.08 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], −0.30 to 0.13), −0.14 (95{\%} CI, −0.35 to 0.07), +0.26 (95{\%} CI, 0.05 to 0.47), +0.11 (95{\%} CI, −0.10 to 0.32), +0.07 (95{\%} CI, −0.14 to 0.28), and +0.00 (95{\%} CI, −0.21 to 0.21), respectively (P <.001). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D)of the predicted SE were 49.0{\%}, 43.1{\%}, 52.9{\%}, 52.9{\%}, 60.8{\%}, and 58.8{\%}, respectively (P =.06). The prediction outcomes from IA were statistically better than Haigis, but not other formulas. When formula and IA predictions differed by 0.5 D or more, IA's ability to recommend a more emmetropic outcome was no better than chance (50{\%}). Conclusions: Intraoperative aberrometry is not significantly different from the best preoperative biometry-based methods available for IOL power selection in short eyes.",
author = "Shruti Sudhakar and Hill, {Darren C.} and Tonya King and Ingrid Scott and Gautam Mishra and Ernst, {Brett B.} and Seth Pantanelli",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "719--724",
journal = "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery",
issn = "0886-3350",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short eyes. / Sudhakar, Shruti; Hill, Darren C.; King, Tonya; Scott, Ingrid; Mishra, Gautam; Ernst, Brett B.; Pantanelli, Seth.

In: Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 45, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 719-724.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short eyes

AU - Sudhakar, Shruti

AU - Hill, Darren C.

AU - King, Tonya

AU - Scott, Ingrid

AU - Mishra, Gautam

AU - Ernst, Brett B.

AU - Pantanelli, Seth

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of preoperative biometry-based formulas to intraoperative aberrometry (IA)with respect to predicting refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in short eyes. Setting: Private practice and community-based ambulatory surgery center. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Eyes with an axial length (AL)shorter than 22.1 mm underwent cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL)implantation. The predicted residual refractive error was calculated preoperatively using Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using IA. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE)was compared with the predicted SE to evaluate the accuracy of each aforementioned method. Results: Fifty-one eyes from 38 patients met criteria to be included in the analysis. Without optimizing the formulas specifically for short eyes, the mean numerical errors (MNEs)associated with Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, and IA were −0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.30 to 0.13), −0.14 (95% CI, −0.35 to 0.07), +0.26 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.47), +0.11 (95% CI, −0.10 to 0.32), +0.07 (95% CI, −0.14 to 0.28), and +0.00 (95% CI, −0.21 to 0.21), respectively (P <.001). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D)of the predicted SE were 49.0%, 43.1%, 52.9%, 52.9%, 60.8%, and 58.8%, respectively (P =.06). The prediction outcomes from IA were statistically better than Haigis, but not other formulas. When formula and IA predictions differed by 0.5 D or more, IA's ability to recommend a more emmetropic outcome was no better than chance (50%). Conclusions: Intraoperative aberrometry is not significantly different from the best preoperative biometry-based methods available for IOL power selection in short eyes.

AB - Purpose: To compare the accuracy of preoperative biometry-based formulas to intraoperative aberrometry (IA)with respect to predicting refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in short eyes. Setting: Private practice and community-based ambulatory surgery center. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Eyes with an axial length (AL)shorter than 22.1 mm underwent cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL)implantation. The predicted residual refractive error was calculated preoperatively using Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using IA. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE)was compared with the predicted SE to evaluate the accuracy of each aforementioned method. Results: Fifty-one eyes from 38 patients met criteria to be included in the analysis. Without optimizing the formulas specifically for short eyes, the mean numerical errors (MNEs)associated with Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, and IA were −0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.30 to 0.13), −0.14 (95% CI, −0.35 to 0.07), +0.26 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.47), +0.11 (95% CI, −0.10 to 0.32), +0.07 (95% CI, −0.14 to 0.28), and +0.00 (95% CI, −0.21 to 0.21), respectively (P <.001). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D)of the predicted SE were 49.0%, 43.1%, 52.9%, 52.9%, 60.8%, and 58.8%, respectively (P =.06). The prediction outcomes from IA were statistically better than Haigis, but not other formulas. When formula and IA predictions differed by 0.5 D or more, IA's ability to recommend a more emmetropic outcome was no better than chance (50%). Conclusions: Intraoperative aberrometry is not significantly different from the best preoperative biometry-based methods available for IOL power selection in short eyes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062403237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062403237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 30853316

AN - SCOPUS:85062403237

VL - 45

SP - 719

EP - 724

JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

SN - 0886-3350

IS - 6

ER -