RESUMO
AIM: To evaluate the application of anterior segment-optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) in posterior capsule opacification (PCO) severity assessment and analyse the relationship between PCO severity and intraocular lens (IOL) characters. METHODS: PCO patients were prospectively recruited. Cross-sectional images of the anterior segment at horizontal and vertical meridians were acquired with AS-OCT. The area of the IOL-PC (posterior capsular) space and PCO severity (area, thickness, and density at 3 mm and 5 mm IOL optic regions) were measured. The relationship between PCO severity and visual acuity, comparisons of PCO severity and IOL-PC space using varied IOL designs were analysed. RESULTS: One hundred PCO eyes were enrolled. IOL-PC space, PCO thickness and area were positively correlated with axial length. In addition, PCO area and thickness were positively correlated with visual acuity when it was ≤0.52 logMAR. The cut-off level of visual acuity should be 0.52 logMAR. With varied IOL designs, 3-piece C haptic IOL showed a smaller PCO area and thickness than the 1-piece 3 haptic IOL and 1-piece 4 haptic IOL. PCO area and thickness values for an IOL with a diameter ≤11.0 mm was greater than for an IOL with a diameter of 12.5 mm, and the differences were statistically significant. PCO area and thickness increased when IOL haptic angulation increased (from 0 to 12 degrees). CONCLUSION: In PCO eyes, cut-off level of visual acuity is 0.52 logMAR. With more severe PCO, visual acuity maybe not enough to describe the visual function impairment. PCO severity and IOL-PC space are significantly correlated with axial length and IOL design and material.
RESUMO
Purposes: To evaluate the accuracy of Ophtha Top and consistency between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 in intraocular lens refractive power calculation among cataract patients with normal and long axial lengths. Methods: This study included cataract patients scheduled for phacoemulsification and IOL implantation surgery. The IOL power was calculated using Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 (integrated with SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 formula). The accuracy of IOL power calculation between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 was compared. Bland-Altman plots were also used to assess agreement between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500. Results: Ninety-four patients (94 eyes) were included. The mean values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors of Ophtha Top were -0.22 ± 0.62 D and 0.52 ± 0.40 D for whole sample. Absolute refractive error showed no significant difference between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 using 3 traditional formulas in eyes with normal and long axial lengths. In normal eyes, mean and medium absolute error of Ophtha Top was 0.49D and 0.48D, which were comparable to that of IOLMaster 500 (Hoffer Q:0.47D; 0.40D & Holladay 1: 0.48D; 0.37D). Similar trend was found in long eyes (Ophtha Top:0.58 D & IOLMaster using SRK/T:0.53D). Conclusions: Ophtha Top based on real ray-tracing method could provide predictable outcomes in all eyes, which was comparable to outcomes from IOLMaster 500 using SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Hollday 1 formula. Ophtha Top would be a promising alternative choice for IOL power calculation.