Objective: To compare refractive outcomes using the Lenstar optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer in the following cases: phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membranes and macular holes (phacovitrectomy group...Objective: To compare refractive outcomes using the Lenstar optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer in the following cases: phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membranes and macular holes (phacovitrectomy group);sequential cataract surgery after prior vitrectomy (sequential-phaco group);routine cataract surgery (phaco-only group). Methods: This study was a retrospective, consecutive comparative series. Main outcomes were mean prediction error (ME) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE). Secondary out-come was the variance in prediction error. Results: ME was significantly more myopic in the phacovitrectomy group (-0.08 ± 0.77D, mean ± SD, p = 0.04) and the sequentialphaco group (-0.09 ± 0.51D, p = 0.01) compared to the phaco-only group (+0.24 ± 0.53D). MAEs were not statistically different across the 3 groups. The phacovitrectomy group had a wider variance in prediction errors compared to the phaco-only group (p = 0.03). Conclusions: There is a myopic shift of approximately -0.3D in both phacovitrectomy and sequential-phaco cases compared to phaco-only cases when using OLCR-based optical biometry. Phacovitrectomy outcomes are more variable compared to phaco-only eyes.展开更多
文摘Objective: To compare refractive outcomes using the Lenstar optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer in the following cases: phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membranes and macular holes (phacovitrectomy group);sequential cataract surgery after prior vitrectomy (sequential-phaco group);routine cataract surgery (phaco-only group). Methods: This study was a retrospective, consecutive comparative series. Main outcomes were mean prediction error (ME) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE). Secondary out-come was the variance in prediction error. Results: ME was significantly more myopic in the phacovitrectomy group (-0.08 ± 0.77D, mean ± SD, p = 0.04) and the sequentialphaco group (-0.09 ± 0.51D, p = 0.01) compared to the phaco-only group (+0.24 ± 0.53D). MAEs were not statistically different across the 3 groups. The phacovitrectomy group had a wider variance in prediction errors compared to the phaco-only group (p = 0.03). Conclusions: There is a myopic shift of approximately -0.3D in both phacovitrectomy and sequential-phaco cases compared to phaco-only cases when using OLCR-based optical biometry. Phacovitrectomy outcomes are more variable compared to phaco-only eyes.
