REFRACTIVE OUTCOMES OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF TRANSSCLERAL FIXATED INTRAOCULAR LENSES

Published 2022 - 26th ESCRS Winter Meeting

Reference: MP12 | Type: Abstracts | DOI: 10.82333/2xhw-n938

Authors: Markus Schranz* ¹ , Adrian Reumüller ¹ , Daniel Schartmüller ¹ , Caroline Novotny ¹ , Klaudia Kostolna ¹ , Claudette Abela-Formanek ¹

¹Ophthalmology and Optometry,Medical University of Vienna,Vienna,Austria

Purpose

To evaluate the refractive prediction error (RPE) of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in patients who have undergone two different methods for transscleral IOL implantation.

Setting

Department for Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Prospective follow up study

Methods

Patients who underwent transscleral IOL implantation using the Yamane or the Carlevale technique were examined 3 months post operatively. Refraction was measured using an autorefractometer, the effective lens position was measured using an anterior segment optical coherence tomograph (AS-OCT).

For the Yamane group (YG) the IOL RPEs for the SRKT, Barrett, Hollayday 2 and Hoffer Q formulas were calculated by subtracting the predicted spherical equivalent (SPE) from the postoperative SPE. Considering the Carlevale group (CG) only the RPE for the SRKT formula was calculated. Subsequently correlations between the RPE and axial length (AL), keratometry values (K-values), white to white (WTW) and ELP were calculated.

Results

Twenty-five eyes of 25 patients were included in the YG whereas 31 eyes of 31 patients met inclusion criteria for the CG. In the YG SRKT, Barrett and Hollayday formula resulted in a myopic mean arithmetic RPE, indicating that the result was more myopic than by the formula predicted, Hoffer Q in a slightly hyperopic RPE, respectively.

Mean absolute RPEs for the YG were 0.52dp for SRKT, 0.54dp for Barrett, 0.46dp for Hollayday and 0.44dp for Hoffer Q formula, respectively.

In the CG, SRKT formula on the other hand led to a hyperopic arithmetic mean RPE, with an absolute RPE of 0.74 dp.

In both groups each formula the absolute RPE differed significantly from 0.

In the CG only axial length was significantly correlated to the mean arithmetic RPE.

In the YG none of the tested biometric parameters (AL, WTW, K-values & ELP) was correlated significantly to the mean arithmetic RPE of any formula.

Conclusion

Post-operative refraction in the CG was more hyperopic than predicted, in the YG 3 of 4 formulas ended in a more myopic result than intended.

In both Groups post-operative refraction differed significantly from 0dp.

AL in the CG was the only biometric parameter which was correlated significantly with the mean arithmetic refractive prediction error.