Medical futility and nonbeneficial interventions: An algorithm to aid clinicians

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


Purpose: To assess the repeatability of an objective image-analysis technique to determine intraocular lens (IOL) rotation and centration. Setting: Six European ophthalmology clinics. Methods: Eyes with an Akreos AO aspheric IOL with orientation marks were imaged. A masked observer rated image quality. The axis of rotation was determined from a line bisecting the IOL orientation marks. This was normalized for rotation of the eye between visits using the axis bisecting 2 consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features. The center of ovals overlaid to circumscribe the IOL optic edge and the pupil or limbus were compared to determine IOL centration. Intrasession repeatability was assessed in a subgroup of eyes and the variability of repeated analysis examined. Results: The SD of intrasession repeatability was ±0.79 degrees for IOL rotational stability, ±0.10 mm for horizontal centration, and ±0.10 mm for vertical centration. The SD of repeated-analysis variability of the same image was ±0.70 degrees, ±0.20 mm, and ±0.31 mm, respectively. The mean eye rotation (absolute) between visits was 2.23 degrees ± 1.84 (SD) (10% >5 degrees rotation) using 1 set of consistent conjunctival vessels or iris features and 2.03 ± 1.66 degrees (7%>5 degrees rotation) using the mean of 2 sets (P = .13). Poorer image quality resulted in larger apparent absolute IOL rotation (r = -0.45, P<.001). Conclusions: Objective analysis of digital retroillumination images allowed sensitive assessment of IOL rotation and centration stability. Eye rotation between images can lead to significant errors if not taken into account. Image quality is important to analysis accuracy. Financial Disclosure: Neither author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. © 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS.




Armstrong, M. H., Poku, J. K., & Burkle, C. M. (2014, December 1). Medical futility and nonbeneficial interventions: An algorithm to aid clinicians. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Elsevier Ltd.

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