RESUMO
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with that of older formulas, such as SRK/T and Hoffer Q, in pediatric cataract surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 100 eyes of 100 children who underwent routine cataract surgery with primary IOL implantation in a bag. This study used four IOLMaster 700 integrated formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (BUII). In addition, the following formulas were used: EVO 2.0, Hill RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL DGS, which are available online. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between SRK/T and most other formulas, except for Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, and BUII (p < 0.05). SRK/T yielded the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) of 0.63 D. This was followed by the BUII (0.66 D), Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST (0.68 D). SRK/T also yielded the highest percentage of cases within ± 0.50 D (43% of the cases). For patients aged 2 to 5 years, SRK/T formula yielded statistically significantly better results than all other included formulas (p < 0.05) with MedAE = 0.44 D, 58.33% and 87.50% of the cases were within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.0 D of intended refraction, respectively. Conclusion: The SRK/T formula showed the best IOL power calculation results in pediatric cataract surgery, followed by BUII, Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST. In children aged 2-5 years, the SRK/T formula outperformed all other formulas, followed by the BUII and Hoffer QST formulas. In children older than 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the different formulas (p > 0.05); Hoffer Q and SRK/T showed slightly better MedAE in this age group (5-10 years).
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the visual results, higher-order aberrations, and corneal biomechanical properties of femtosecond small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) at depths of 100 and 160 µm. METHODS: A prospective comparative interventional clinical trial of a series of patients who underwent SMILE. In the right eye, a refractive lenticule was created at a depth of 100 µm, and in the left eye, a depth of 160 µm was used. Manifest refraction, uncorrected visual acuity, total high-order aberrations (THOA), and corneal biomechanical properties of both eyes were evaluated 1 month postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty patients with bilaterally stable refractive errors were included in this study. One month postoperatively, mean corneal hysteresis was 9.71 ± 0.68 in the right eyes and 9.97 ± 0.77 in the left eyes, whereas the mean corneal resistant factor was 9.13 ± 1.04 and 9.31 ± 0.92 in the right and left eyes, respectively. Both corneal hysteresis and corneal resistant factor showed statistically significantly higher values in the left eyes (lenticule at a depth of 160 µm). No statistically significant differences were found between the right and the left eyes regarding manifest refraction, uncorrected visual acuity, and THOA. CONCLUSIONS: Creating the refractive lenticule at a depth of 160 µm in SMILE had less effect on the corneal biomechanics than did creating a lenticule at a depth of 100 µm with no statistically significant differences in the refractive outcome and THOA between both groups.
