A perspective of biometric, visual and refractive outcomes of cataract surgery: a report of an ophthalmologist in compulsory governmental service

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 6, 647 - 654, 04.11.2020

Elif Ceren Yesilkaya

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.753817

Abstract

Objectives: Knowledge of normal values of biometric parameters in cohort and relationships of them is helpful for ophthalmologists who want to achieve successful results. The aim of this study is to define these parameters in the light of experiences of an individual cataract surgeon after her residency program.

Methods: This is a retrospective, register-based study. Preoperative biometric and postoperative refractive data including axial length (AL), mean keratometry (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), astigmatism, lens thickness (LT) of 310 patients who had cataract surgery were reviewed. Ultrasound and optical biometry were used to evaluate the biometric parameters of the eyes.

Results: 0.5 D of refractive target (RT) was obtained in 52.1% (186 eyes) of eyes, 1.0 D of RT in 82.20% (293 eyes) and 2.0 D of RT in 98.3% (351 eyes). Analyses of visual acuity show that 43.7% and 86.3% of eyes reached 0.00 and 0.30 log MAR or better. Age, ACD, LT, AL, preoperative corrected distance visual acuity, preoperative astigmatism and preoperative K were correlated between each other significantly (p < 0.001). The longer AL was found associated with older age (β = .745, p = 0.003), and lower K (β = -0.327, p < 0.001). A significant association between K value and older age (β = .680, p = .029) and shorter AL (β = -.660, p < 0.001) was seen.

Conclusions: These data show the normative parameters of biometry values for the Turkish population. These results may be helpful in calculating intraocular lens power and evaluating refractive error for young ophthalmologists who have to work with ultrasound biometry in compulsory service.

Keywords

Cataract, biometric parameters, Turkish population, young ophthalmologists

References

• 1. Low SA, Braga-Mele R, Yan DB, El-Defrawy S. Intraoperative complication rates in cataract surgery performed by ophthalmology resident trainees compared to staff surgeons in a Canadian academic center. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018;44:1344-9.
• 2. Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2000;16:349-61.
• 3. Simsek A. Biometric and intraocular pressure changes after Nd: YAG laser capsulotomy. Eur Res J 2017;3:140-4.
• 4. Krysik K, Lyssek-Boron A, Janiszewska-Bil D, Wylegala E, Dobrowolski D. Impact of ultrasound and optical biometry on refractive outcomes of cataract surgery after penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol 2019;12:949-53.
• 5. Amritanand A, Simha AR, Baglari R, Roselin J, Michael J, Mahasampath G. Agreement of axial length measurements by three different biometric devices. J Clin Diagn Res 2018;12:NC01-NC04.
• 6. Cartwright NK, Johnston R, Jaycock P, Tole D, Sparrow J. The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55 567 operations: when should IOLMaster biometric measurements be rechecked? Eye 2010;24:894-900.
• 7. Day A, Donachie P, Sparrow J, Johnston R. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists’ National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: report 1, visual outcomes and complications. Eye 2015;29:552-60.
• 8. Narendran N, Jaycock P, Johnston R, Taylor H, Adams M, Tole D et al. The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55 567 operations: risk stratification for posterior capsule rupture and vitreous loss. Eye 2009;23:31-7.
• 9. Bikbov M, Fayzrakhmanov RR, Kazakbaeva G, Jonas JB. Ural Eye and Medical Study: description of study design and methodology, Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2018;25:187-98.
• 10. Varma R, Paz SH, Azen SP, Klein R, Globe D, Torres M et al, L.A.L.E.S. Group. The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study: Design, methods, and baseline data. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1121-31.
• 11. Yin G, Wang YX, Zheng ZY, Yang H, Xu L, Jonas JB, B.E.S. Group. Ocular axial length and its associations in Chinese: the Beijing Eye Study. PloS One 2012;7:e43172.
• 12. Ferreira TB, Hoffer KJ, Ribeiro F, Ribeiro P, O’Neill JG. Ocular biometric measurements in cataract surgery candidates in Portugal. PloS One 2017;12:e0184837.
• 13. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Miraftab M, Emamian MH, Shariati M, Abdolahinia T, et al. The distribution of axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and vitreous chamber depth in an adult population of Shahroud, Iran. BMC Ophthalmol 2012;12:50.
• 14. Rachmiel R, Trope G, Chipman M, Buys Y. Cataract surgery rates in Ontario, Canada, from 1992 to 2004: more surgeries with fewer ophthalmologists. Can J Ophthalmol 2007;42:539-42.
• 15. Hoffmann PC, Hütz WW. Analysis of biometry and prevalence data for corneal astigmatism in 23 239 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:1479-85.
• 16. Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, González-Méijome JM, Cerviño A. Prevalence of corneal astigmatism before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:70-5.
• 17. Duman R, Cevik SG, Cevik MT, Duman R. Prevalence of corneal astigmatism and axial length in cataract surgery candidates in Turkey. Eur Res J 2017;3:25-9.
• 18. Zong Y, Xu Q, Jiang C, Zhu H, Yu J, Sun X. Measurement of and factors associated with the anterior chamber volume in healthy Chinese adults. J Ophthalmol 2017;2017:6762047.
• 19. Salmon JF. Predisposing factors for chronic angle-closure glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 1999;18:121-32.
• 20. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. Prevalence of cataract in Australia: the Blue Mountains eye study. Ophthalmology 1997;104:581-8.
• 21. TeshigawaraT, Meguro A, Mizuki N. Influence of pupil dilation on predicted postoperative refraction and recommended IOL to obtain target postoperative refraction calculated by using third-and fourth-generation calculation formulas. Clin Ophthalmol 2018;12:1913-9.