Search

Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy of refractive outcomes in children undergoing secondary in-the-bag or cilliary sulcus intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, using aphakic refraction (AR)-based formulae (Hug and Khan) and biometry-based formulae (Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II). Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 65 eyes of 44 patients who underwent secondary in-the-bag or cilliary sulcus IOL implantation were included and divided into 2 groups: 39 eyes of the in-the-bag IOL group and the other 26 eyes of the sulcus-implanted IOL group. Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II formulae were employed depending on the biometric data, while Hug and Khan formulae were used based on preoperative AR. The prediction error (PE) and the absolute value of predicted error (APE) were compared between the 2 groups and formulae. Results: In the in-the-bag IOL group, nonsignificant differences of APE were found among the 6 formulae, while the Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II all demonstrated a significant hyperopic shift of median PE value compared to the Hug formula (p < 0.05, all), and Holladay 1 and SRK II also showed a significant hyperopic shift of PE compared to the Khan formula (p < 0.05, both). Higher percentages of eyes with PE p < 0.05, all), and the SRK II had a significantly smaller median value of APE than the Hug formula (p < 0.05), while Holladay 1 had the lowest value of APE. Higher percentages of eyes within PE p < 0.05, all). In the eyes of with in-the-bag implanted IOL, the Hug and Khan formulae had significantly smaller APE values when compared with the eyes with sulcus-implanted IOL (p < 0.05, both). Conclusions: Whether IOL was in the bag or implanted in the sulcus, almost all the formulae showed hyperopic shift, SRK/T showed the best accuracy. Biometry-based formulae were superior to AR-based formulae in accuracy of IOL power calculation, especially when IOL was implanted in the sulcus. In-the-bag IOL implantation should always be with higher priorities, especially when using AR-based formulae in IOL power calculation.

Introduction: The macular morphologic and microvascular changes in children with pseudophakia after pediatric cataract surgery remain unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze macular morphologic and microvascular remodeling in children with pseudophakia after pediatric cataract surgery using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). Methods: Consecutive cases between December 1, 2018, and November 31, 2020 were recruited. Sixty-one participants (31 pseudophakic children and 30 healthy controls) met the inclusion criteria and were included for final analysis. OCTA was used to measure macular vascular density, the foveal avascular zone (FAZ), and macular thickness. The parameters were compared between pseudophakic and healthy eyes using binary logistic regression, with adjustment for the effect of refractive error, age, and axial length. Results: Compared with normal eyes, a significantly reduced area of the FAZ (p = 0.042), increased superficial foveal vascular density (p = 0.033), and increased inner and outer foveal thickness (p = 0.034 and 0.029, respectively) were noted in pseudophakic eyes. The deep parafoveal vascular density was generally lower in eyes with cataracts (p ≤ 0.044). The inner foveal thickness was positively correlated with the superficial foveal vascular density (r = 0.889, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with the area of the FAZ (r = −0.903, p < 0.001). The outer foveal thickness was positively correlated with the deep foveal vascular density (r = 0.399, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Morphological and microvascular remodeling in children with previous pediatric cataract indicates foveal underdevelopment. The underlying mechanism requires further investigation.

Objective: To evaluate the morphology of iridocorneal angle and anterior segment in eyes of children with cataract. Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study, we included eyes of children with bilateral cataract as well as unilateral cataract and fellow eyes. The iridocorneal angle was evaluated using gonioscopy. We compared the preoperative structures of iridocorneal angle and anterior segment between cataractous eyes and fellow eyes. The grading of iridocorneal angle and anatomical changes were analyzed. Results: We finally recruited 55 eyes of 55 children with bilateral cataract and 41 cataractous eyes and 33 fellow eyes of 41 children with unilateral cataract. The fellow eyes were used as a control group. The iridocorneal angle was open in eyes with pediatric cataract when compared to control eyes. The eyes with cataract exhibited more pigments on the trabecular meshwork than control eyes did (unilateral cataract vs. control, p = 0.013; bilateral cataract vs. control, p = 0.002). The eyes with cataract exhibited a smaller cornea than control eyes (unilateral cataract vs. control, p = 0.031; bilateral cataract vs. control, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The iridocorneal angle is open in the eyes of children with cataract. Eyes with increased pigments on the trabecular meshwork need to be carefully monitored and surgeons should to be on the alert for postoperative glaucoma.