Accuracy and Precision of Intraocular Lens Calculations Using the New Hill-RBF Version 2.0 in Eyes With High Axial Myopia.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and precision of the new Hill-RBF version 2.0 (Hill-RBF 2) formula with other formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) in predicting residual refractive error after phacoemulsification in high axial myopic eyes. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: 127 eyes of 127 patients with axial length (AL) ≥26 mm were included. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between the postoperative refraction and the refraction predicted by each formula for the intraocular lens (IOL) power actually implanted. Standard deviation (SD) of PE, median absolute PE (MedAE), proportion of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopter (D) of PE were compared. A generalized linear model was used to model the mean function and variance function of the PE (indicative of the accuracy and precision) with respect to biometric variables. RESULTS: The MedAE and SD of Hill-RBF 2 were lower than that of Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T (P ≤ .036) and were comparable to Barrett Universal II and Haigis (P ≥ .077). Hill-RBF 2 had more eyes within ±0.25 D of the intended refraction (76 out of 127 eyes [59.84%]) compared to other formulas (P ≤ .034) except Barrett Universal II (P = .472). AL was associated with the mean function or variance function of the PE for all formulas except Hill-RBF 2. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the precision of Hill-RBF 2 is comparable to Barret Universal II and Haigis. Unlike the other 5 formulas, its dispersion and the accuracy of the refractive prediction is independent of the AL.

Non-mydriatic ultrawide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy compared with dilated fundal examination for assessment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular oedema in Chinese individuals with diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To evaluate the performance of ultrawide field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (UWF-SLO) for assessing diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DME) in a Chinese population, compared with clinical examination. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. A series of 322 eyes from 164 patients with DM were included. Each patient underwent both dilated fundal examination with DR and DME grading by retina specialist and non-mydriatic 200° UWF-SLO (Daytona, Optos, Dunfermline, UK). The severity of DR and DME from UWF-SLO images was further graded by ophthalmologists, according to both international clinical DR and DME disease severity scales and the standard 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale. Any DR, DME and vision-threatening DR (VTDR) were treated as endpoints for this study. RESULTS: 23 out of 322 images (7.14%), including all four cases with proliferative DR on clinical examinations, were determined as ungradable. When the international scale was used for grading UWF-SLO images, the sensitivity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 67.7%, 67.4% and 72.6%, respectively; the specificity of any DR, DME and VTDR was 97.8%, 97.3% and 97.8%, respectively. The agreement with clinical grading in picking up any DR, DME and VTDR was substantial, with κ-values of 0.634, 0.694 and 0.707, respectively. The performance of UWF-SLO was shown to be lower when ETDRS scale was used for grading the images. CONCLUSION: The performance of non-mydriatic UWF-SLO is comparable in identifying DR with that of clinical examination in a Chinese cohort. However, whether UWF-SLO can be considered as tool for screening DR is still undetermined.