Observational analysis evaluated IOL power calculation using segmental optical biometry, indicating functional improvement.
Purpose . To evaluate the results of segmented optical biometry for IOL power calculation in a short-term follow-up period. Patients and methods . 68 patients (90 eyes) after implantation of various IOL models were included in the study. The mean age was 70.43 ± 9.55 years (44–89 years). Women predominated in the sample ( n = 49; 72 %). Optical biometry was performed with the Argos device (Alcon, USA) and IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss, Germany). IOL calculation was performed based on Argos data using the formulas: Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO, Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, Kane, Pearl DGS. Phacoemulsification with IOL implantation was performed using the standard technique. The observation period was 1 month. Results . One month after the operation there was a significant increase in the distance UCVA (from 0.1 (0.04; 0.20) before the operation to 0.7 (0.188; 1.00)), distance BCVA (from 0.5 (0.3; 0.8) to 1.0 (0.9; 1.0)), and a decrease in IOP from 15 (13; 16.25) to 13 (11; 15) mmHg. The absolute error was significantly lower for the Cooke K6 formula compared with Kane (0.230 (0.130; 0.389) and 0.268 (0.143; 0.405) D, respectively, p = 0.0005) and for the Hill-RBF formula compared with Hoffer QST (0.190 (0.086; 0.399) and 0.248 (0.133; 0.478) D, respectively, p = 0.0007). The share of eyes with refraction within ±0.25 D of the predicted value was significantly higher for the Hill-RBF formula compared with Kane (62.22% and 45.56%, respectively, p = 0.002). The proportion of eyes with refraction within ±0.5, ±1.0, and ±1.5 D of the predicted value did not differ significantly between the formulas. Axial length (AL) measured with Argos, was significantly longer in “short” eyes (AL≤ 22.0 mm) and shorter in “average” and “long” eyes (AL≥ 26.0 mm) compared to IOLMaster 700. Conclusion . This work presents an analysis of the first experience of using segmented optical biometry for calculation of various types of IOLs in the Russian Federation. A favorable clinical and functional effect and a high frequency of achieving target refraction values were noted. The Hill-RBF formula demonstrates some advantage over the Kane and Hoffer QST formulas, and the Cooke K6 formula over Kane.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Першин et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: