PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation on refractive outcomes in patients with high myopia. SETTING: University of Cologne, Department of Ophthalmology, Cologne, Germany. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: The refractive outcomes in myopic eyes were compared between phacoemulsification and IOL implantation with a CTR (CTR group) and without a CTR (control group). Optical biometry (IOLMaster) was obtained. The power of the IOL was used to calculate the predicted postoperative spherical equivalent using the Haigis and SRK/T formulas. The main outcome measures were the mean error and mean absolute error of the refractive prediction error. RESULTS: The mean axial length was 29.1 mm (range 26.5 to 34.1 mm) in the CTR group and 28.2 mm (range 25.6 to 31.1 mm) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean absolute refractive prediction error between the CTR group and the control group with the Haigis formula (P = .921) or SRK/T formula (P = .693). However, there was lower variance in the absolute refractive prediction error in the CTR group with both formulas (P = .014 and P = .027, respectively). Intragroup differences between formulas were not statistically significant (CTR, P = .069; control P = .551). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a CTR had no consistent effect on refractive outcomes compared with routine phacoemulsification in highly myopic eyes. There was a tendency toward higher precision in outcomes with a CTR. Results indicate IOL power calculation does not have to be changed when a CTR is used.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation on refractive outcomes in patients with high myopia. SETTING: University of Cologne, Department of Ophthalmology, Cologne, Germany. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: The refractive outcomes in myopic eyes were compared between phacoemulsification and IOL implantation with a CTR (CTR group) and without a CTR (control group). Optical biometry (IOLMaster) was obtained. The power of the IOL was used to calculate the predicted postoperative spherical equivalent using the Haigis and SRK/T formulas. The main outcome measures were the mean error and mean absolute error of the refractive prediction error. RESULTS: The mean axial length was 29.1 mm (range 26.5 to 34.1 mm) in the CTR group and 28.2 mm (range 25.6 to 31.1 mm) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean absolute refractive prediction error between the CTR group and the control group with the Haigis formula (P = .921) or SRK/T formula (P = .693). However, there was lower variance in the absolute refractive prediction error in the CTR group with both formulas (P = .014 and P = .027, respectively). Intragroup differences between formulas were not statistically significant (CTR, P = .069; control P = .551). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of a CTR had no consistent effect on refractive outcomes compared with routine phacoemulsification in highly myopic eyes. There was a tendency toward higher precision in outcomes with a CTR. Results indicate IOL power calculation does not have to be changed when a CTR is used.