P I Gus1, I Kwitko, D Roehe, S Kwitko. 1. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil. guga@orion.ufrgs.br
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine potential acuity meter (PAM) accuracy in patients with cataract as the only ocular disease. SETTING: Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 74 eyes with cataract. Patients with other ocular pathology diagnosed before or after surgery, as well as those with complicated surgeries, were excluded. All patients had PAM evaluation before surgery; these results were compared to the final postoperative visual acuity. Patients were divided into 4 cataract groups based on the Lens Opacity Classification System II: Group 1, early cataracts (nuclear opalescence [NO] 1 and/or posterior subcapsular cataracts [P] 1 and/or cortical opacity [C] < 2); Group 2, definite cataracts (NO2 and/or C2, with or without P1); Group 3, posterior cataracts (P2 or P3); Group 4, mature cataracts (N3 and/or C > or = 3, with or without P1). The PAM result was considered accurate if it was within 2 lines of the postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: All patients had a BSCVA of 20/20. Accuracy of the PAM was 58.3% in Group 1, 50.0% in Group 2, 27.8% in Group 3, and 6.7% in Group 4 (P =.000 017). Patient age did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: The PAM may be used as a complementary tool in evaluating early and nondense cataracts; however, patients should not be excluded as candidates for cataract surgery based solely on PAM results.
PURPOSE: To determine potential acuity meter (PAM) accuracy in patients with cataract as the only ocular disease. SETTING: Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 74 eyes with cataract. Patients with other ocular pathology diagnosed before or after surgery, as well as those with complicated surgeries, were excluded. All patients had PAM evaluation before surgery; these results were compared to the final postoperative visual acuity. Patients were divided into 4 cataract groups based on the Lens Opacity Classification System II: Group 1, early cataracts (nuclear opalescence [NO] 1 and/or posterior subcapsular cataracts [P] 1 and/or cortical opacity [C] < 2); Group 2, definite cataracts (NO2 and/or C2, with or without P1); Group 3, posterior cataracts (P2 or P3); Group 4, mature cataracts (N3 and/or C > or = 3, with or without P1). The PAM result was considered accurate if it was within 2 lines of the postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: All patients had a BSCVA of 20/20. Accuracy of the PAM was 58.3% in Group 1, 50.0% in Group 2, 27.8% in Group 3, and 6.7% in Group 4 (P =.000 017). Patient age did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: The PAM may be used as a complementary tool in evaluating early and nondense cataracts; however, patients should not be excluded as candidates for cataract surgery based solely on PAM results.
Authors: Tamer A Macky; Abdel Moniem Hasaballah Mohamed; Ahmed M Emarah; Amr Abdellatif Osman; Ahmed S Gado Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.848