A comparison of refractive accuracy between conventional and femtosecond laser cataract surgery techniques using modern iol formulas

2Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the refractive outcome prediction accuracy between conventional (CCS) and femtosecond laser assisted (FLACS) cataract surgery techniques using optimized lens constants for modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas. Patients and Methods: Our retrospective, comparative, interventional case series, compared data from 196 eyes undergoing CCS and 456 eyes undergoing FLACS with Acrysof IOL (Alcon laboratories, Inc) implantation. After optimizing IOL constants, the predicted refractive outcome was calculated for all formulas for each case. This was compared to the actual refractive outcome to provide the prediction error. The performance of CCS and FLACS was compared by the absolute prediction error and percentage of eyes within 0.25D, 0.5D and 1.0D of anticipated refractive outcome. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in median absolute error between the CCS and LACS groups for the Kane (0.256, 0.236; p=0.389), SRK T (0.298, 0.302, p=0.910), Holladay (0.312, 0.275; p=0.090), Hoffer Q (0.314, 0.289; p=0.330), Haigis (0.309, 0.258; p=0.177), Barrett Universal 2(0.250, 0.250; p=0.866), Holladay 2 (0.250, 0.258; p=0.860) and Olsen (0.260, 0.255; p=0.570) formulas. Similarly, there was no consistent difference between the two techniques for percentage of patients within 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0D of predicted refractive outcome for each formula. Conclusion: There was no difference in refractive outcome prediction accuracy between the CCS and FLACS techniques.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Connell, B. J., Kane, J. X., & Vajpayee, R. B. (2021). A comparison of refractive accuracy between conventional and femtosecond laser cataract surgery techniques using modern iol formulas. Clinical Ophthalmology, 15, 899–907. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S296032

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free