Observational studyJournal of optometry
Optimizing IOL calculation in triple-DMEK: Data from a real-life cohort.
Observational study in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo enhance the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients with Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) undergoing simultaneous cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (triple-DMEK) by predicting corneal power changes.
methodsObservational ambispective monocentric cohort study. A linear corneal change model (LCCM) was developed to predict corneal change from the preoperative corneal ratio (anterior/posterior radius). LCCM was validated by comparing prediction errors with the traditional IOL optimization method.
results97 eyes of 69 patients were analyzed. Preoperative keratometry was biometrically unmeasurable in 9 eyes, so manually entered autorefractometer data were used for IOL calculations and were analyzed separately. Mean absolute error (MAE) in the manual group (1.35 D (-1.04, 3.75)) was higher than the measured group (0.75 D (-0.62, 2.12)). The median change in simulated keratometry (SimK) was -0.21 ± 0.68 D and in total keratometry (TK) was -0.62 ± 1.09 D (p < 0.001). SRKT outperformed the rest with constant optimization (0.60 D (-0.53, 1.74)). LCCM showed similar MAE to the constant optimization method (p > 0.05). However, MAE for the optimization method was higher (2.08 D (1.77, 2.39)) than LCCM method (1.87 D (1.62, 2.12)).
conclusionsSimK and TK change significantly after Triple-DMEK. The LCCM could reduce extreme refractive surprises by assisting surgeons in the individualized selection of the best IOL for each eye based on the expected corneal change. Study limitations include variability in FECD severity and the inherent limitations of biometric formulas applied to non-standard eyes. Further studies are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.