Comparison Of The Refractive Predictive Error Employing 4 Formulas In Rock Hard Cataracts Using The Argos Biometer With Image Guidance
Published 2024 - 42nd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP05.07 | Type: Poster | DOI: 10.82333/2y7t-k314
Authors: Ana Laura Villavicencio Igartua 1 , Claudia Corredor Ortega 1 , Jose Roberto Arreola Martinez* 2 , Ximena Dominguez Luna 1 , Ivonne Ruiz Delgadillo 1 , Jesus Enrique Arreola Martinez 1 , Roberto Gonzalez Salinas 1
1Anterior Segment Department,Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, I.A.P.,Mexico City,Mexico, 2Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Medicine and Health Sciences,Monterrey,Mexico
Purpose
Refractive predictive error was compared, employing 4 formulas in rock hard cataracts using the ARGOS Biometer with Image Guidance
Setting
Anterior Segment Department, “Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México I.A.P.” (APEC) from July 2023 to October 2023
Methods
A retrospective study analyzing clinical records of cataract patients and a LOCS III classification ≥NO4NC4 who have undergone cataract phacoemulsification surgery with intraocular lens placement whose measurements calculation was performed with the ARGOS Biometer from July 2023 to October 2023 in order to compare the outcomes of 4 widely used formulas.
A database was created with the demographic, clinical characteristics, pre- and post-surgical data, and results were compared for each patient using all four formulas to assess accuracy in final residual refractive error.
Results
A total of 72 eyes were included, 67% were female. Mean age was 70.72 ± 9.36 years. Axial length is a determining factor for precision in formulas, specially on hard cataract patients.
The analysis (Figure 1) showed that the Holladay II (HII) formula was significantly higher in prediction of final refractive error of less than 0.5 diopters compared to the subsequent best formula (64% vs 52% p=0.023)
The second analysis (Figure 2) showed that no formula was significantly better in prediction of residual cylinder of less than 0.5 diopters compared to the rest (64% vs 61%, p=0.19)
Conclusions
Our study differs significantly from what has been reported in the literature in terms of the precision of the most recent formulas, where Barrett Universal II and Kane formulas were not the formulas with the lowest final residual error and Holladay II performed better.
To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies employing SS-OCT biometry in hard cataract evaluating IOL formulas accuracy, to achieve a more appropriate selection of the power of the intraocular lens.
Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and the fact that the ARGOS measurements were performed by several people with different levels of training.