Refractory Outcomes after Cataract Surgery in Acute Primary Angle-closure Glaucoma Patients Treated with Laser Iridotomy
10.3341/jkos.2019.60.5.447
- Author:
Hye Seong HWANG
1
;
Dong Yoon KIM
;
Hyun Tae KIM
;
Ju Byung CHAE
;
Sungmin HYUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea. smh@chungbuk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
AL-Scan®;
Angle-closure glaucoma;
Anterior chamber;
Axial length;
Refractive errors
- MeSH:
Anterior Chamber;
Biometry;
Cataract;
Glaucoma, Angle-Closure;
Humans;
Lenses, Intraocular;
Medical Records;
Refractive Errors;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2019;60(5):447-454
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To analyze the accuracy of ocular biometry and prediction of postoperative refraction after cataract surgery in acute primary angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) patients treated with laser iridotomy (LI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 44 patients who underwent cataract surgery after LI due to ACG (ACG group), and 37 patients who underwent cataract surgery without ocular disease other than cataract (control group) from January 2015 to May 2018. An Acrysof® single piece (SN60WF) was used as the intraocular lens. We performed preoperative ocular biometry and intraocular lens power calculations using AL-Scan®. The accuracy of the postoperative refractive power prediction was analyzed according to the anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL). RESULTS: The preoperative ACD was 2.29 ± 0.32 mm in the ACG group and 3.15 ± 0.27 mm in the control group (p < 0.01), and the respective AL values were 22.53 ± 0.80 mm and 23.87 ± 1.38 mm (p < 0.01). Using the Haigis formula, patients with an ACD < 2.30 mm in the ACG group (0.52 ± 0.36 diopters [D]) had less accurate results in terms of the mean absolute error than patients with an ACD > 2.31 mm in the ACG group (0.27 ± 0.20 D) and control group (0.27 ± 0.20 D). There was no significant difference in the mean absoluter error between each formula in patients with an AL of < 22.0 mm or > 22.1 mm in the ACG and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with LI due to ACG, those patients with an ACD > 2.31 mm showed no difference in refractory prediction compared to the control group. However, in patients with an ACD < 2.30 mm, the refractory prediction may be inaccurate when using the Haigis formula, a fourth-generation formula that takes into account the ACD.
