BACKGROUND: To determine accuracy of partial coherence interferometry (PCI) in patients with large inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference. METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract surgery at two academic medical centers with an inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference of > 0.30 mm were identified and were matched to control patients without inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm on the basis of age, sex, and AEL. The expected post-operative refraction for the implanted IOL was calculated using SRK/T, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q formulae. The main outcome measures were the refractive prediction error and the equivalence of the refractive outcomes between the subjects and controls. RESULTS: Review of 2212 eyes from 1617 patients found 131 eyes of 93 patients which met inclusion criteria. These were matched to 131 control eyes of 115 patients. The mean AEL was 24.92 ± 1.50 mm. The mean absolute error (MAE) ranged from 0.47 D to 0.69 D, and was not statistically different between subjects and controls. The refractive prediction error was equivalent between the cases and controls, with no significant difference between the MAE for any formula, nor in the number of cases vs. controls with a refractive prediction error of at least 0.50 D or 1.00 D. CONCLUSIONS: Among eyes in our study population, good-quality PCI data was equally accurate in patients with or without an inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm. Confirmatory AEL measurements using different AEL measuring modalities in patients with a large inter-eye AEL difference may not be necessary.
BACKGROUND: To determine accuracy of partial coherence interferometry (PCI) in patients with large inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference. METHODS:Patients undergoing cataract surgery at two academic medical centers with an inter-eye axial eye length (AEL) difference of > 0.30 mm were identified and were matched to control patients without inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm on the basis of age, sex, and AEL. The expected post-operative refraction for the implanted IOL was calculated using SRK/T, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q formulae. The main outcome measures were the refractive prediction error and the equivalence of the refractive outcomes between the subjects and controls. RESULTS: Review of 2212 eyes from 1617 patients found 131 eyes of 93 patients which met inclusion criteria. These were matched to 131 control eyes of 115 patients. The mean AEL was 24.92 ± 1.50 mm. The mean absolute error (MAE) ranged from 0.47 D to 0.69 D, and was not statistically different between subjects and controls. The refractive prediction error was equivalent between the cases and controls, with no significant difference between the MAE for any formula, nor in the number of cases vs. controls with a refractive prediction error of at least 0.50 D or 1.00 D. CONCLUSIONS: Among eyes in our study population, good-quality PCI data was equally accurate in patients with or without an inter-eye AEL difference > 0.30 mm. Confirmatory AEL measurements using different AEL measuring modalities in patients with a large inter-eye AEL difference may not be necessary.
Authors: Petros Aristodemou; Nathaniel E Knox Cartwright; John M Sparrow; Robert L Johnston Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Sanjeewa Wickremasinghe; Paul J Foster; Davaatseren Uranchimeg; Pak Sang Lee; Joe G Devereux; Poul Helge Alsbirk; David Machin; Gordon J Johnson; Jamyanjav Baasanhu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.799