Evaluating newer generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in manual versus femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

AIM:To determine the refractive accuracy of the Haigis,Barrett Universal II(Barrett),and Hill-radial basis function 2.0(Hill-RBF)intraocular lens(IOL)power calculations formulas in eyes undergoing manual cataract surgery(MCS)and refractive femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery(Re LACS).METHODS:This was a REB-approved,retrospective interventional comparative case series of 158 eyes of 158 patients who had preoperative biometry completed using the IOL Master 700 and underwent implantation of a Tecnis IOL following uncomplicated cataract surgery using either MCS or ReLACS.Target spherical equivalence(SE)was predicted using the Haigis,Barrett,and Hill-RBF formulas.An older generation formula(Hoffer Q)was included in the analysis.Mean refractive error(ME)was calculated one month postoperatively.The lens factors of all formulas were retrospectively optimized to set the ME to 0 for each formula across all eyes.The median absolute errors(MedAE)and the proportion of eyes achieving an absolute error(AE)within 0.5 diopters(D)were compared between the two formulas among MCS and ReLACS eyes,respectively.RESULTS:Of the 158 eyes studied,64 eyes underwent MCS and 94 eyes underwent ReLACS.Among MCS eyes,the MedAE did not differ between the formulas(P=0.59),however among ReLACS eyes,Barrett and Hill-RBF were more accurate(P=0.001).Barrett and Hill-RBF were both more likely to yield AE<0.5 D among both groups(P<0.001).CONCLUSION:The Barrett and Hill-RBF formula lead to greater refractive accuracy and likelihood of refractive success when compare to Haigis in eyes undergoing Re LACS.

Determining the hospital cost of anterior epistaxis treatment modalities at a Canadian tertiary care centre

Objective:To estimate the hospital costs of managing anterior epistaxis in the Emergency Department at a Tertiary Care centre in Canada.Material and methods:A cost analysis was conducted based on a retrospective review of Emergency Department visits from January 2012 to May 2014.A consecutive sample of adult patients with a diagnosis of anterior epistaxis was included.Anterior epistaxis was managed via one of:Nasal clip,Merocel(R),Silver Nitrate cautery,Vaseline packing,other treatment or no treatment.Both the direct and indirect hospital costs(SCDN)for anterior epistaxis treatment were calculated from the hospital's perspective.Generalized linear models were used to assess the association between treatment modalities and total hospital costs while controlling for potential confounding factors.Results:Three hundred and fifty-three patients(49%female)with a mean age of(69.9±18.5)years were included in the analysis.The median(interquartile ranges)costs of treatment ranged from CS227.83(CS167.96,CS328.69)for observation to CS763.98(CS632.25,CS830.23)for Merocel(R).The overall median total hospital costs incurred across all modalities was CS566.24(CS459.61,CS753.46)for the management of anterior epistaxis.Silver Nitrate,nasal clip,and observation were statistically associated with a lower cost when compared to Merocel(R)(P<0.001)even after potential confounding factors were controlled.Conclusions:Our results show wide difference in the hospital cost of epistaxis across treatment modalities.These cost estimates can help inform future economic evaluation studies aiming to guide the allocation of health care resources for patients with epistaxis.