Joaquín Fernández, M. Rodríguez-Vallejo, Noemí Burguera, Patrizia Salvestrini, N. Garzón
{"title":"环形人工晶状体结果考虑角膜后散光与在线计算器:超声乳化与飞秒","authors":"Joaquín Fernández, M. Rodríguez-Vallejo, Noemí Burguera, Patrizia Salvestrini, N. Garzón","doi":"10.3390/opt2030017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. 58 right eyes were retrospectively retrieved from our database. Two groups formed by 28 and 30 eyes depending on the surgery type, Phaco or Femto respectively, were defined. Astigmatism PE were evaluated considering the approach used for calculation of the implanted IOL power (AK) versus the estimation of PEs in non-PCA and Barrett formula. A doubly-multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the differences between-surgery types, within-methods of calculation, and interaction. Mean centroid PE was significantly different between non-PCA, AK and Barrett approaches (p < 0.0005), and neither differences (p < 0.239) nor interaction (p = 0.672) between Phaco or Femto were found. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed a higher PE for the x-component of the non-PCA method versus AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005) and non-PCA versus Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005), though no differences were found between AK and Barrett (0.03 D, p = 0.93). Against-the-rule under-correction and with-the-rule overcorrection were found in both arms when PCA was not considered. Both calculators provide comparable clinical results.","PeriodicalId":54548,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Optics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toric Intraocular Lens Results Considering Posterior Corneal Astigmatism with Online Calculators: Phacoemulsification vs. Femtosecond\",\"authors\":\"Joaquín Fernández, M. Rodríguez-Vallejo, Noemí Burguera, Patrizia Salvestrini, N. Garzón\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/opt2030017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. 58 right eyes were retrospectively retrieved from our database. Two groups formed by 28 and 30 eyes depending on the surgery type, Phaco or Femto respectively, were defined. Astigmatism PE were evaluated considering the approach used for calculation of the implanted IOL power (AK) versus the estimation of PEs in non-PCA and Barrett formula. A doubly-multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the differences between-surgery types, within-methods of calculation, and interaction. Mean centroid PE was significantly different between non-PCA, AK and Barrett approaches (p < 0.0005), and neither differences (p < 0.239) nor interaction (p = 0.672) between Phaco or Femto were found. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed a higher PE for the x-component of the non-PCA method versus AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005) and non-PCA versus Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005), though no differences were found between AK and Barrett (0.03 D, p = 0.93). Against-the-rule under-correction and with-the-rule overcorrection were found in both arms when PCA was not considered. Both calculators provide comparable clinical results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Optics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Optics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"101\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/opt2030017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Materials Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Optics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/opt2030017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Materials Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
评价不考虑角膜后散光矫正(非pca)的超声乳化(Phaco)或飞秒(Femto)手术与基于Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK)和Barrett计算器的矫正在环形人工晶状体(IOL)度数计算中的预测误差(PE)。回顾性地从数据库中检索了58只右眼。根据手术类型分为Phaco组和Femto组,分别为28眼和30眼。将人工晶体植入术度数(AK)的计算方法与非pca和Barrett公式中植入术度数的估计方法进行比较,评估散光PE。采用双多变量分析来评估手术类型、计算方法和相互作用之间的差异。非pca法、AK法和Barrett法的平均质心PE差异有统计学意义(p < 0.0005), Phaco法和Femto法的平均质心PE差异无统计学意义(p < 0.239),且无交互作用(p = 0.672)。事后单变量分析显示,非pca方法的x分量的PE高于AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005)和非pca方法的PE高于Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005),尽管AK和Barrett之间没有差异(0.03 D, p = 0.93)。在不考虑PCA的情况下,两臂均出现反规则校正不足和符合规则校正过度。两种计算器提供了相似的临床结果。
Toric Intraocular Lens Results Considering Posterior Corneal Astigmatism with Online Calculators: Phacoemulsification vs. Femtosecond
To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. 58 right eyes were retrospectively retrieved from our database. Two groups formed by 28 and 30 eyes depending on the surgery type, Phaco or Femto respectively, were defined. Astigmatism PE were evaluated considering the approach used for calculation of the implanted IOL power (AK) versus the estimation of PEs in non-PCA and Barrett formula. A doubly-multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the differences between-surgery types, within-methods of calculation, and interaction. Mean centroid PE was significantly different between non-PCA, AK and Barrett approaches (p < 0.0005), and neither differences (p < 0.239) nor interaction (p = 0.672) between Phaco or Femto were found. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed a higher PE for the x-component of the non-PCA method versus AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005) and non-PCA versus Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005), though no differences were found between AK and Barrett (0.03 D, p = 0.93). Against-the-rule under-correction and with-the-rule overcorrection were found in both arms when PCA was not considered. Both calculators provide comparable clinical results.