Abstract
Purpose :
Describe the result of intraocular lens calculation with ORA, Kane, and Barrett Universal II in patients who have undergone phacoemulsification with intraocular lens placement.
Measure the average of the absolute predictive error, measure the median of the absolute predictive error, stage the accuracy of the absolute error, compare the results obtained from the three methods used.
Methods :
Prospective, longitudinal, observational and descriptive study. From February 2022 to December 2022, in which the intraocular lens was calculated using the Barrett UII, Kane, and ORA .
The sample was calculated based on the Raufi et al study, with an online calculator called Sample Size Calculator, for a power of 95% and a significance level of 5%.
Inclusion: Patients who underwent phacoemulsification, adequate fixation.
Exclusion: Concomitant ocular diseases that do not allow fixation, alterations on the ocular surface.
Elimination: Loss of follow-up.
Results :
Total of 90 eyes, AL <22mm 1 eye, 22.01 to 25mm 77 eyes and >25mm in 12 eyes. 4 types of intraocular lenses: Bausch&Lomb-MX60E 63.3%, Alcon-SA60AT 24.4%, Hoya-FY-60AD 8.9%, and Alcon-TNFT00 3.3%.
The mean diopters placed for the Barrett UII was 20.36, for the Kane 19.41, and for ORA 20.64.
The mean predicted refraction for the Barrett UII was -0.35, for the Kane -0.22, and for ORA -0.30.
The mean real error calculation error for each method was: Barret UII 0.2263 with a lower limit of -0.0702 and upper limit of 0.3824, for Kane 0.0958 with a lower limit of -0.0143 and upper limit of 0.2059, and for ORA 0.1723 with a lower limit of 0.0360 and upper limit of 0.3086.
The median absolute calculation error for Barrett UII was 0.25, Kane 0.27 and ORA 0.26, using the Kruskal-Wallis test a p value of 0.751 was obtained, which represents a non-statiscally significant calculation error.
Conclusions :
This study support the results obtained by Raufi et al, in which the ORA was compared vs. Barrett UII vs. Hill- RBF, and no significant differences were found in the mean absolute error between the methods.
This study demonstrates that there in no statiscally significant difference in the comparison of the three methods, which does not provide any additional benefit to the intraoperative calculation with the ORA in patients who have not undergone corneal surgery and healthy eyes without surgical complications.
This abstract was presented at the 2023 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in New Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 2023.