Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula integrated into a commercially available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To compare the commonly used formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) selection using IOLMaster®700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and to evaluate the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula accuracy when using the Vivinex™ iSert® XY1 IOL (Hoya Corporation Medical Division). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed that included patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with in-the-bag insertion of Vivinex™ iSert® XY1 IOL. Prediction errors at 3 months postoperative of IOLMaster® 700 with Haigis, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and BU-II formulas were compared. As a subgroup analysis, we focused on the axial length (AL) and IOL power. AL subgroup analysis was based on the following AL subgroups: short (<22.5 mm), medium (22.5-25.5 mm), and long (>25.5 mm). IOL power subgroup analysis was based on the following IOL power subgroups: low (≤18.0 diopters [D]), medium (18.5-24.0 D), and high (≥24.5 D). RESULTS: This study included 590 eyes of 590 patients. Overall, the four IOL calculation formulas appeared to be similarly accurate. In the long AL subgroup, the BU-II formula had a significantly lower absolute error (AE) than the Holladay 1 formula. In the low-power subgroup, the BU-II formula had a significantly lower AE than the Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. On the other hand, in the high-power subgroup, the BU-Ⅱ formula was significantly less accurate than the SRK/T formula and also appeared to be worse than the Holladay 1 formula (P = 0.052). CONCLUSION: The BU-II formula might be less accurate when using a Vivinex™ iSert® XY1 IOL of 24.5 D or greater.

Prospective clinical evaluation of 1.5% levofloxacin ophthalmic solution in ophthalmic perioperative disinfection.

PURPOSE: Gram-positive cocci and Propionibacterium acnes are widely reported agents of infectious postoperative endophthalmitis. This multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the eradication effectiveness and safety profile of levofloxacin 1.5% ophthalmic solution (LVFX 1.5%) for use in perioperative disinfection. METHODS: Patients who were scheduled for cataract surgery were enrolled. The perioperative regimen of LVFX 1.5% was administered 3 times daily as follows: preoperative 3 days; the day of surgery (in the morning, 1 h before surgery, and immediately after surgery); and postoperative 2 weeks. Conjunctival sac scrapings were collected 3 times in the observation period; before preoperative administration, before iodine eyewash on the day of surgery, and after completion of postoperative administration. Isolated and identified microbial strains were assessed for antibacterial susceptibility. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled and data obtained from 96 patients (mean age, 72.7 ± 8.9 years). The preoperative eradication rate was 86.7% in total microbes. In the case of gram-positive cocci, the preoperative eradication rate was 100%, even though there were LVFX-registrant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, which had a high minimum inhibitory concentration against LVFX, such as 32 µg/mL. On the other hand, that of P. acnes was 78.3%. No acquired drug resistance was suspected in all strains. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 4.2% patients, and all were slight. CONCLUSIONS: For ophthalmic perioperative disinfection, the LVFX 1.5% ophthalmic solution showed a good safety profile, and critical eradication of gram-positive cocci, including the fluoroquinolone-resistant strains.