Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Autor:	Pantanelli SM; Department of Ophthalmology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania., Hatch K; Cornea and Refractive Surgery Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts., Lin CC; Stanford Eye Institute, Palo Alto, California., Steigleman WA; University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida., Al-Mohtaseb Z; Whitsett Vision Group, Houston, Texas; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas., Rose-Nussbaumer JR; Stanford University, Palo Alto, California; Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California., Santhiago MR; University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil., Keenan TDL; Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland., Kim SJ; Department of Ophthalmology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee., Jacobs DS; Cornea and Refractive Surgery Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts., Schallhorn JM; Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Ophthalmology [Ophthalmology] 2024 Oct 03. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 03.
DOI:	10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.08.007
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios. Methods: Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III. Results: Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas. Conclusions: Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu