Search

Yu-Te Huang,1 Chun-Ju Lin,1– 3,* Chun-Ting Lai,1,* Ning-Yi Hsia,1 Peng-Tai Tien,1,4 Henry Bair,1,5 Huan-Sheng Chen,6 Chun-Chi Chiang,1,2 Jane-Ming Lin,1,3 Wen-Lu Chen,1,3 Wen-Chuan Wu,1 Yi-Yu Tsai1– 3 1Department of Ophthalmology, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; 2School of Medicine, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; 3Department of Optometry, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan; 4Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Science, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; 5Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; 6An-Shin Dialysis Center, NephroCare Ltd., Fresenius Medical Care, Taichung, Taiwan*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Chun-Ju Lin; Chun-Ting LaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, China Medical University Hospital, 2 Yuh-Der Road, Taichung City, 40447, TaiwanTel +886-4-22052121, ext. 1141Fax +886-4-22059265Email doctoraga@gmail.com; withwind037@yahoo.com.twBackground: To compare refractive outcomes after phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation using two different toric calculators for initial astigmatism assessment in a real-world setting.Methods: This was a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. Patients over 30-year-old who underwent phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation (AcrySof® Toric IOL) by the same surgeon between 2017 and 2018 were included. Eyes with irregular astigmatism, previous corneal refractive surgery, intraocular surgery, corneal pathology, macular pathology and pupil abnormalities were excluded. IOL toricity was determined by using a calculator provided by the AcrySof Toric calculator before 2018 and Barrett Toric Calculator after 2018. Patient demographics, corneal topography, vector and preoperative and postoperative refraction were collected and analyzed at three months postoperative.Results: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients were included in the f

Henry Bair,1,2 Wei-Hsun Kung,1 Chun-Ting Lai,1,* Chun-Ju Lin,1,3,4,* Huan-Sheng Chen,5 Cheng-Hsien Chang,1 Jane-Ming Lin,1 Ning-Yi Hsia,1 Wen-Lu Chen,1 Peng-Tai Tien,1,6 Wen-Chuan Wu,1 Yi-Yu Tsai1,3,4 1Department of Ophthalmology, China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; 2Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; 3School of Medicine, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan; 4Department of Optometry, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan; 5An-Shin Dialysis Center, NephroCare Ltd., Fresenius Medical Care, Taichung, Taiwan; 6Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Chun-Ju Lin; Chun-Ting LaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, China Medical University Hospital, 2 Yuh-Der Road, Taichung City, 40447, TaiwanTel +886-4-22052121, ext. 1141Fax +886-4-22059265Email doctoraga@gmail.com; withwind037@yahoo.com.twBackground: To evaluate the efficacy of micro-incision vitrectomy surgery using a non-contact wide-angle viewing system for fovea-attached type epiretinal membrane, and to report the factors influencing the outcome.Methods: A retrospective, comparative case series that included 50 patients with fovea-attached type epiretinal membrane who received micro-incision vitrectomy surgery using a non-contact wide-angle viewing system.Results: All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 12 months. Seven cases were classified as group 1A (mainly outer retinal thickening), 17 were group 1B (more tenting of outer retina and distorted inner retina), and 26 were group 1C (prominent inner retina thickening and inward tenting of outer retina). Outcome measures included operation time, recurrent rate, postoperative BCVA, and CRT. The mean operative time was 26.2 minutes. The mean change of BCVA (LogMAR) was − 0.43 (p< 0.001). The mean change of CRT was 135.3 μm (p< 0.001). The me