Search

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a point-of-view cataract surgery simulation video in representing different subjective experiences of patients undergoing the procedure. METHODS: One hundred consecutive post-cataract-surgery patients were shown a short simulation video of the surgery obtained through a porcine eye model during the first postoperative week. Patients then answered a multiple-choice questionnaire regarding their visual and tactile intraoperative experiences and how those experiences matched the simulation. RESULTS: Of the patients surveyed (n = 100), 78% (n = 78) recalled visual experiences during surgery, 11% recalled pain (n = 11), and 6.4% (n = 5) recalled frightening experiences. Thirty-six percent of patients (n = 36) were interviewed after their second cataract surgery; there was no statistically significant difference between anxiety scores reported before the first eye surgery and second eye surgery (p = 0.147). Among all patients who recalled visual experiences (n = 78), nearly half (47.4%) reported that the video was the same/similar to their experience. Forty-eight percent of the patients recommended future patients to watch the video before their procedures, and more than a third (36%) agreed that watching the video before surgery would have helped them to relax. CONCLUSIONS: Our model reflects the wide range of subjective patient experiences during and after surgery. The high percentage of patients who found the video accurate in different ways suggests that, with more development, point-of-view cataract simulation videos could prove useful for educational or clinical use. Further research may be done to confirm the simulations utility, by screening the video for subjects before operations.

BackgroundSeasonal outbreaks of infectious conjunctivitis remain a public health issue. Determination of outbreak etiologies in the context of a worldwide pandemic may provide useful information to guide public health strategies. The aim of this study was to identify pathogens associated with outpatient infectious conjunctivitis during the COVID-19 Delta surge.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted from April 2021 to September 2021. All outpatients presenting to the Aravind Eye Center (Madurai, India) with signs and symptoms consistent with acute infectious conjunctivitis were eligible. Three swabs were obtained from each participant: one from each conjunctiva and one from the anterior nares. Samples were processed for metagenomic RNA deep sequencing (RNA-seq).ResultsSamples from 106 study participants were sequenced. The most common presenting symptoms were tearing (86%) and itching (71%). Preauricular lymphadenopathy was present in 38% of participants. 20% of participants had close contacts with similar symptoms. Systemic symptoms such as coughing, runny nose, vomiting or diarrhea were uncommonly reported. 60% of all participants used some medicated eye drops upon enrollment. 75% of study participants demonstrated infection with human adenovirus D (HAdV-D). 11% of conjunctivitis was associated with SARS-CoV-2. 15% had no definitive pathogen detected. 8% of all participants had codetection of more than one pathogen on RNA-seq.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 Delta surge in India, HAdV-D was the most common pathogen associated with infectious conjunctivitis. SARS-CoV-2 was the second most common associated pathogen. Seasonal surveillance may be necessary for the determination of emerging and reemerging pathogens responsible for infectious conjunctivitis.

PurposeTo determine the predictors of Bruch membrane opening (BMO) location accuracy and the visibility of the BMO location in glaucoma and healthy individuals with and without axial high myopia.DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsHealthy eyes and eyes with glaucoma from an American study and a Korean clinic population were classified into 2 groups: those with no axial high myopia (axial length [AL]

This study quantifies the performance of an international cohort of cornea specialists in image-based differentiation of bacterial and fungal keratitis, identifying significant regional variation and establishing a reference standard for comparison against machine learning models.

PURPOSE:To assess the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison to established formulas in the elderly population. SETTING:Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, USA. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort. METHODS:Retrospective data from 90 patients ≥75 years old who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with SN60WF IOL implantation were evaluated. The first operated eyes of patients with final best-corrected visual acuity 20/40 or better and axial length 22-26 mm were included. Prediction errors were calculated for Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane and SRK/T formulas. A subgroup analysis based on age (75-84 and ≥85 years old) was performed. RESULTS:Use of both BUII and Kane formulas resulted in the highest percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D (72% each) and significantly higher than Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T (p=0.001). Rates of predictability within ±0.25 D and ±1.00 D were 31%-38% and 87% -92%, respectively, with no significant differences between formulas. No statistically significant difference was seen between formulas in the median absolute error. These tendencies remained consistent in both age groups when analyzed separately. Subgroup analysis showed better predictability of all formulas in the younger age group. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study evaluating the Kane formula exclusively in the elderly population. The Kane formula was found to be of equal accuracy to the BUII and superior to the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. Very elderly patients may have reduced refractive precision using all formulas.

Background/objectivesTo analyze the refractive predictability and outcomes of cataract surgery in the very elderly (≥85 years old).Subjects/methodsA retrospective case-series performed at the Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, USA. Electronically pulled data of 2444 surgeries revealed 147 surgeries on 133 very elderly patients. Chart review was conducted for all very elderly and corresponding control patients (75-84 years old). The first operated eyes of patients with final best-corrected visual acuity ≥20/40, axial length (AL) 22-26 mm, and implanted SN60WF IOL were included. Patients with ocular comorbidities and/or intra- or post-operative complications were excluded. Prediction errors of refractive outcome and percentage of eyes within ±0.50D and ±1.00D were compared between the groups for the Holladay 1 and Barrett Universal II (Barrett) formulas. Logistic regression analysis for achievement of ±1.00D was conducted.ResultsFinal analysis included 90 eyes (n = 44, very elderly, n = 46, control patients). Median absolute refractive error (MedAE) with Holladay 1, but not Barrett formula, was significantly higher in the older group (p = 0.02 and p = 0.07, respectively). The MedAE in the older group was lower using the Barrett compared to Holladay 1 (p = 0.02). Fewer older patients than younger patients achieved refraction within ±0.50D and ±1.00D from goal, using the Holladay 1 (p = 0.049 and p = 0.002 respectively). Logistic regression analysis supported the relationship between Holladay 1 predictive refractive error of >1.00D and patient's age (p = 0.046).ConclusionsVery elderly patients undergoing cataract surgery may be prone to reduced refractive precision, particularly with utilization of the Holladay 1 formula.

Background Methods Results Conclusion Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) poses significant challenges. While various formulas, including KCN‐specific ones, have been investigated, the optimal calculation method remains inconclusive.The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023483119). PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with KCN. The percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the mean PE and the mean absolute error (MAE) were compared using a random effect model in Bayesian network meta‐analysis.Nine retrospective clinical studies were included, totalling 623 eyes and 25 calculation methods. The Barrett True‐K formula for KCN with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) achieved the highest ranking for the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, mean PE, and MAE, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 95%, 95%, 97% and 95%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that for the predictability rates within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the best ranking formulas were: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (85%) and BTK MPC (78%), respectively, in mild KCN; BTK with predicted posterior cornea (PPC) (85%) and MPC (88%), respectively, in moderate KCN; and Kane KCN for both metrics in severe KCN (84% and 95%, respectively).The BTK MPC formula ranked highest across various metrics, suggesting its superior accuracy for IOL calculations in KCN. The optimal formulas may differ based on KCN severity, with current evidence suggesting potential advantage of Kane KCN for severe cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in different age groups using various IOL calculation formulas. Methods: Data from 421 eyes of 421 patients ≥60 years old (ages: 60–69, n = 131; 70–74, n = 105; 75–84, n = 158 and ≥85, n = 27), who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with SN60WF IOL implantation at John A. Moran Eye Center, Salt Lake City, USA, were retrospectively obtained. The SD of the prediction error (PE), median and mean absolute PEs and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated after constant optimizations for the following formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 and SRK/T. Results were compared between the different age groups. Results: Predictability rates within 0.25D were lower for the eldest age group compared with the other groups using the EVO 2.0 (33% vs. 37%–53%, p = 0.045), Kane (26% vs. 35%–50%, p = 0.034) and SRK/T (22% vs. 31%–49%, p = 0.002). Higher median absolute refractive errors for all formulas were observed in the oldest group [range: 0.39 D (Haigis, Hoffer QSR)–0.48 D (Kane)], followed by the youngest group [range: 0.30 D (RBF 3.0)–0.39 D (Holladay 1, SRK/T)] but did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences between the groups in the distribution parameter were seen. Conclusion: Current IOL power calculation formulas may have variable accuracy for different age groups. This should be taken into account when planning cataract surgery to improve refractive outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This retrospective study found that postoperative corneal steepness greater than 49 D is not associated with worse visual outcomes after hyperopic LASIK, suggesting need for revision of the traditional postoperative 49 D cutoff. Purpose: To compare corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) outcomes of hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with a postoperative corneal steepness above vs below 49 diopters (D). Setting: Care-Vision Laser Centers, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: This study included consecutive patients who underwent hyperopic LASIK between January 2013 and December 2019. Hyperopic patients were divided into 2 groups based on postoperative corneal steepness with steep corneas defined >49.0 D and the control group ≤49.0 D. Adjustments were performed to account for differences in baseline and intraoperative parameters. Results: Overall, 1703 eyes of 1703 patients were included. Mean age was 48.3 ± 10.0 years, and 45.3% were male. Preoperatively, the steep group (2.4%, n = 41/1703) had steeper mean (44.6 D vs 43.1 D, P <.001) and steep (45.1 D vs 43.5 D, P <.001) keratometry, worse logMAR CDVA (0.07 vs 0.04, P =.02), and higher sphere (4.9 D vs 2.9 D, P <.001). Intraoperatively, they had a higher spherical treatment (4.6 D vs 2.8 D, P <.001). After hyperopic LASIK, the steep group had worse logMAR CDVA (0.10 vs 0.06, P =.01). However, after accounting for differences in baseline and spherical treatment, no significant differences were found in postoperative logMAR CDVA (0.06 vs 0.06, P =.99). The factors that remained associated with worse postoperative CDVA were higher spherical treatment (0.01 logMAR per 1 D, P <.001) and preoperative CDVA (0.60 logMAR per 1.00 logMAR, P <.001). Conclusions: Postoperative corneal steepness greater than 49 D is not associated with worse visual outcomes after hyperopic LASIK. However, lower preoperative visual potential and higher spherical treatment applied are associated with worse outcomes. The 49 D cutoff should be revisited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) five‐variable formula to previous generation formulae in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following paediatric cataract extraction. Methods: Retrospective study of consecutive paediatric patients who underwent uneventful cataract extraction surgery along with in‐the‐bag IOL implantation between 2012 and 2018 in the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The accuracy of five different IOL formulae, including the BUII, Sanders‐Retzlaff‐Kraff Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay I, Hoffer Q and Haigis, was evaluated. Constant optimization was performed for each IOL and for each formula separately. Mean prediction error (PE) and the mean and median absolute PE (APE) were calculated for the five different IOL formulae investigated. Results: Sixty‐six eyes of 66 children (59% males) with a median age at surgery of 6.2 years (IQR, 3.2–9.2 years) were included in the study. The mean IOL power that was implanted was 23.3 ± 5.1 D (range; 12.0–39.0 D). Overall, the BUII had a comparable median APE to the Hoffer Q, Holladay I, SRK/T and Haigis formulae (BUII: 0.49D versus 0.48D, 0.61D, 0.74D and 0.58D respectively; p = 0.205). The BUII, together with Hoffer Q, produced better predictability within 0.5D from target refraction compared with the SRK/T formula (BUII:51.5%, Hoffer Q:51.5% versus SRK/T:31.8%, p = 0.002 for both). Conclusion: The BUII formula had comparable accuracy to other tested formulae and outperformed the SRK/T formula, when calculating IOL power within the 0.5D range from target refraction in paediatric eyes undergoing cataract surgery with in‐the‐bag IOL implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]