• PURPOSE: To compare biometry performed by an enhanced version of dual beam partial coherence interferometry and applanation ultrasound in a prospective study of 85 cataract eyes to improve refractive outcome of cataract surgery due to a more accurate calculation of intraocular lens power. • METHODS: The SRK II formula using ultrasound biometry data was employed. Three months after surgery, partial coherence interferometry biometry was repeated and refractive outcome was determined. Preoperative partial coherence interferometry biometry data were used to determine the refractive power of the intraocular lenses retrospectively and to calculate the possible refractive outcome. • RESULT: Precision of partial coherence interferometry biometry was more than 10 times better than that of ultrasound. Therefore, the possible mean absolute error for postoperative refraction achieved with partial coherence interferometry biometry was 0.49 diopters (compared with 0.67 diopters with ultrasound biometry), resulting in an improvement of 27%. Axial eye length measured with the two techniques differed by a mean of 460 μm. The difference in lens thickness measured with partial coherence interferometry and ultra-sound significantly correlated with cataract grade. A mean shortening of 120 μm of axial eye length following cataract surgery was also detected by partial coherence interferometry. • CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced version of partial coherence interferometry offers biometry with un, precedented precision (<10 μm) and resolution (~12 μm), therefore improving the refractive outcome in cataract surgery. This noninvasive technique provides a high degree of comfort for the patient, with no need for local anesthesia or pupil dilation and minimized risk of corneal infection.

Partial Coherence Interferometry: A Novel Approach to Biometry in Cataract Surgery

Incidence of endophthalmitis after 20- and 25-gauge vitrectomy

A post-operative manifest refractive error as close as possible to target is key when performing cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, given that residual astigmatism and refractive errors negatively impact patients’ vision and satisfaction. This review explores refractive outcomes prior to modern biometry; advances in biometry and its impact on patients’ vision and refractive outcomes after cataract surgery; key factors that affect prediction accuracy; and residual refractive errors and the impact on visual outcomes. There are numerous pre-, intra-, and post-operative factors that can influence refractive outcomes after cataract surgery, leaving surgeons with a small “error budget” (i.e., the source and sum of all influencing factors). To mitigate these factors, precise measurement and correct application of ocular biometric data are required. With advances in optical biometry, prediction of patient post-operative refractory status has become more accurate, leading to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target refraction. Alongside improvements in biometry, advancements in microsurgical techniques, new IOL technologies, and enhancements to IOL power calculations have also positively impacted patients’ refractory status after cataract surgery.

/pdf/refractive-outcomes-after-cataract-surgery-qbumh3zo.pdf

Refractive Outcomes after Cataract Surgery

Purpose This study compared the extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) (ZXR00; Tecnis® Symfony®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) and a new presbyopia-correcting IOL that combines EDOF and multifocal profiles (ZFR00; Tecnis® Synergy®, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Santa Ana, CA, USA) with the same material. Methods The medical records of patients undergoing cataract surgery with ZXR00 or ZFR00 implantation between March 2021 and July 2021 and with the data available for the 3-month visit were reviewed. The uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuity (VA), corrected distance VA, defocus curves, refractive errors (RE), optical quality parameters, and patient-reported visual performance parameters were the main outcome measures. Results Among the twenty-three enrolled patients, twelve patients (21 eyes) received ZXR00 and nine patients (17 eyes) received ZFR00. The mean age of the patients was 59.6 ± 10.6 (range: 49 to 70) and 65.2 ± 8.2 (range: 45 to 82) years in ZXR00 and ZFR00 groups, respectively, without significant difference. There was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline parameters and postoperative RE. The ZFR00 group showed markedly superior intermediate and near VA (p < 0.001 for all) at 3 months postoperatively. In terms of optical quality, ZXR00 was significantly better than ZFR00 (p < 0.001). Conclusions Both IOLs had comparable distance VA. ZFR00 IOL was superior for intermediate and near visual acuity, but ZXR00 IOL was better for optical quality. Research with more participants is needed to support this finding.

Comparison of visual results and optical quality of two presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses: TECNIS symfony versus TECNIS synergy

ZusammenfassungNoch immer bestehen hinsichtlich Ätiologie und Pathogenese der Durchblutungsstörungen der V. centralis retinae Wissenslücken. Auch wenn in den letzten Jahren vielfältige neue therapeutische Ansätze entwickelt wurden, werden bestehende Therapieformen kontrovers diskutiert, und die Daten sind z. T. inkonsistent. Diese Diskussion geht in der deutschsprachigen Literatur auch mit einer vielfältigen und uneinheitlichen Terminologie einher, die nicht zuletzt Vorstellungen zum Pathomechanismus und Ausprägungsgrad gerecht werden soll. Die allgemeine Bezeichnung \"Verschluss\" erscheint von allen Begriffen am besten geeignet, da damit keine Aussagen über mögliche ätiologische Faktoren gemacht werden. Venöse retinale Verschlüsse treten in unterschiedlicher Lokalisation und Ausdehnung auf, je nach Verschlussort ergibt sich hier eine Klassifikation in Zentralvenenverschlüsse, Hemizentralvenenverschlüsse, Hauptvenenastverschlüsse und Makulavenenastverschlüsse. In dieser Übersicht soll der aktuelle Kenntnisstand zur Pathogenese und zu etablierten sowie in klinischer Erprobung befindlichen Therapieansätzen von Zentralvenen- und Venenastverschlüssen aufgezeigt werden.AbstractThere are still gaps in understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of circulatory disorders of the central retinal vein. Although various new therapeutic approaches have been developed in the past few years, existing therapy forms are subject to controversy and available data are to some extent inconsistent. This discussion in the German-language literature is associated with varied and nonuniform terminology, which should do justice in particular to concepts of pathomechanism and degree of specificity. The general designation \"occlusion\" seems to be the most suitable of all available terms since this implies no conclusions on possible etiological factors. Retinal vein occlusions develop at different sites and to varying extents. Depending on the location of the occlusion, they can be classified into occlusions of the central vein, hemicentral vein, major branch vein, and macular branch vein. This overview provides information on the current knowledge of the pathogenesis and both established approaches and those in ongoing clinical trials for the treatment of central venous and branch vein occlusions.

Vense retinale Verschlsse

Satisfaction of patients undergoing cataract surgery is dependent on precise predictions of refractory outcomes. Over the years, development of biometry, phacoemulsification, and intraocular lens (IOL) calculation enabled precise prediction of postoperative refractory status.

To obtain accurate IOL power, a number of factors are needed. These biometries include axial length, corneal refractive power, and anterior chamber depth. Among these factors, Olsen [1] reported that axial length plays a main role in determining postoperative refraction and is responsible for 54% of the actual refractive error. Axial length error of 100 µm translates to a postoperative refraction error of 0.28 diopters (D).

Until recently, axial length was measured by using applanation ultrasound technique, which involves contact with the cornea and can result in corneal epithelial injury, infection, and patient discomfort. Error due to corneal indentation, which can lead to axial lengths 0.1 to 0.3 mm shorter than those measured by the immersion technique, is also a major disadvantage of the applanation ultrasound method [2].

To overcome this limitation, a partial coherence interferometer (PCI), which is based on the principle similar to that of optical coherence tomography, was introduced. Axial length measured by this method was comparable to that of other methods in precision and repeatability. Especially considering that the method is of the non-applanation type, it has the advantage of giving the patient less discomfort and has a low interobserver error [3,4,5,6].

Commonly used PCIs in the clinical setting include the IOL Master (Carl Zeiss Meditiec, Jena, Germany) and Lenstar (Haag Steit AG, Koeniz, Switzerland). Recently, the new PCI AL-scan (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) has been introduced and increases precision by using a 3-dimentional ocular tracking technique. By using PCI and scheimpflug imaging techniques, AL-scan made it possible to measure axial length, corneal refractive power, anterior chamber depth, central corneal thickness, white-to-white distance, and pupil size in a single sitting based on those values and automatically calculates the appropriate IOL power to be used in cataract surgery by onboard software.

According to previous studies, it is known that the IOL Master and Lenstar show greater or similar accuracy compared to the conventional ultrasound techniques [3,7,8]. However, studies on the newly launched PCI, AL-scan, are lacking. Therefore, in this study we used AL-scan to measure axial length and refraction. With the obtained values, IOL power is calculated to look for the degree of error compared with the predicted value preoperatively and analyze the accuracy compared to values obtained from ultrasound.

/pdf/accuracy-of-biometry-for-intraocular-lens-implantation-using-59dyrcj1yf.pdf

Accuracy of Biometry for Intraocular Lens Implantation Using the New Partial Coherence Interferometer, AL-scan

Measurement Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters between AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R).

Diurnal Blood Pressure Variation in the Retinal Vein Occlusion

A Case of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Fragmentation During the Injection Procedure in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose: To investigate clinical availability of AL-Scan (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) by comparing corneal refractive power with AL-Scan, Autokeratometer (Topcon KR-1, Tokyo, Japan) and Pentacam (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) devices. Methods: Seventy-one patients (142 eyes) who visited our hospital for refractive surgery were tested using AL-Scan, Autokeratometer and Pentacam and corneal refractive power was compared among devices. Results: When comparing measurements with AL-Scan, Autokeratometer and Pentacam, the mean corneal refractive power was 43.37 ± 1.32 D (2.4 mm zone), 43.35 ± 1.32 D (3.3 mm zone), 43.36 ± 1.35 D, and 43.35 ± 1.36 D respectively and showed no significant differences. Corneal refractive power had strongly positive linear correlation (p < 0.001) and Bland-Altman plots showed high degree of agreement among AL-Scan, Autokeratometer and Pentacam devices. Conclusions: Because measuring ocular biometry with AL-Scan including axial length, intraocular lens power calculation and topography simultaneously is possible, clinical use is convenient. Corneal refractive power was not different when compared with autokeratometer and Pentacam devices, thus, AL-Scan can be used in the clinical environment. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(7):984-990

/pdf/comparative-analysis-of-corneal-refractive-power-measured-1bdw8plock.pdf

Comparative Analysis of Corneal Refractive Power Measured with AL-Scan(R), Autokeratometer, and Pentacam(R).

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Sung Hyup Lim

Author Tools

Chat about Author