Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes.

PURPOSE: To compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Setting: Two academic centers Study Population: 576 eyes (400 patients) with previous M-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. A SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry values (TK). OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 11 no-history formulas: two legacy M-LVC formulas, four new M-LVC formulas using K values only, and five new M-LVC formulas using K with PK or TK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Heteroscedastic testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance, and formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: New M-LVC formulas performed better than legacy M-LVC formulas. New M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values performed better than versions without PK/TK values. Among new M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values, EVO 2.0-PK was superior to Hoffer QST-PK (P < 0.005). Among new M-LVC formulas using K only, Pearl DGS-K and EVO 2.0-K were both superior to Hoffer QST-K and Barrett True K NH-K formulas (all P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should favor using new no-history post M-LVC formulas over legacy post M-LVC formulas whenever possible. The top-performing M-LVC formulas (EVO 2.0-PK, Pearl DGS-PK, and Barrett True K-TK) utilized posterior corneal power values. Among formulas utilizing K alone, the EVO 2.0-K and Pearl DGS-K performed best.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-VEGF Injections and Surgery for AMD-Related Submacular Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.

TOPIC: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections compared to surgical intervention in improving visual acuity (VA) and reducing complications for patients with submacular hemorrhage (SMH) due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Determining the optimal intervention for SMH in AMD is crucial for patient care. METHODS: We included studies on anti-VEGF injections or surgical interventions for SMH in AMD from 7 databases, searched up to May 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were done by two independent reviewers. Certainty of evidence was assessed GRADE approach. Meta-analysis employed random-effects models. Primary outcomes were pooled mean logMAR VA difference (initial examination minus last follow-up VA) and adverse events rates. RESULTS: A total of 43 observational studies were included: 21 (960 eyes) on anti-VEGF and 22 (455 eyes) on surgery. Comparisons were made across separate studies due to lack of head-to-head studies. Meta-analysis included 11 anti-VEGF studies (444 eyes) and 12 surgical studies (195 eyes) for VA outcomes. The mean difference (MD) in VA was -0.16 (95%CI: -0.26,-0.07) for anti-VEGF and -0.36 (95%CI: -0.68,-0.04) for surgery, with no significant difference between groups (X2=1.70, df =1, p=0.19). Heterogeneity was high in surgical studies (I2=96.2%, tau2=0.23, p<0.01) and negligible in anti-VEGF studies (I2=7%, tau2=0.003, p=0.38). GRADE certainty was moderate for anti-VEGF and low for surgery. Anti-VEGF had lower rates of cataract (0% vs 4.6%), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR, 0.1% vs 2.0%), and retinal detachment (RD, 0.1% vs 10.6%), but similar rates of recurrent hemorrhage (5.4% vs 5.3%). Complications were summarized descriptively due to zero cell problem. CONCLUSION: Both anti-VEGF and surgery treat SMH in AMD with similar VA outcomes but different safety profiles. Anti-VEGF is preferred for less severe hemorrhage, while surgery is suited for extensive hemorrhage. Despite uncertain comparative VA outcomes, treatment should be guided by clinical judgment and patient factors.