ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Optical Biometry Errors in Eyes with Iris-Claw Phakic Intraocular Lenses.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of iris-claw phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs) on anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurement by optical biometers and the potential impact of ACD errors on hypothetical intraocular lens (IOL) power selection for cataract surgery. Patients and Methods: Seventy-six eyes of 38 patients with iris-claw pIOLs (Artiflex) underwent biometry using Pentacam (Scheimpflug), Lenstar LS-900 (optical low-coherence reflectometry), and Eyestar 900 (swept-source OCT). The failure and misidentification rates of ACD measurement were recorded. Eyestar B-scans were manually reviewed and corrected when segmentation errors were identified. Hypothetical IOL power was calculated using Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas. Results: Pentacam successfully measured ACD in all 76 eyes. Lenstar LS-900 angd Eyestar 900 failed to provide ACD measurements in 4 eyes (5.3%) and 14 eyes (18.4%), respectively. Using a predefined threshold of >10% deviation from the Pentacam value, inaccurate ACD measurements were identified in 30 eyes (39.5%) with Lenstar and in 17 eyes (22.4%) with Eyestar. On Eyestar, 20 eyes (26.3%) showed misidentification of the anterior pIOL surface as the anterior capsule of the crystalline lens, and 11 eyes (14.5%) were interpreted as aphakic. After manual correction, Eyestar ACD values closely matched Pentacam measurements, with a mean difference of 0.04 ± 0.03 mm. Correction of erroneous ACD measurements changed Barrett Universal II-based hypothetical IOL power selection by at least 0.50 D in 7 of 17 affected eyes (41.2%). Conclusion: In eyes with iris-claw pIOLs, automated optical biometers may misidentify ocular structures and underestimate ACD, potentially leading to clinically meaningful differences in hypothetical IOL power selection. Manual review and correction of Eyestar B-scan images restored ACD measurements to close agreement with Pentacam values. These findings highlight the importance of careful inspection of raw biometry images in such eyes, particularly when using formulas that incorporate measured ACD.
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.