Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Cataract-related Visual Function Questionnaire (CVFQ). Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study of 141 cataract patients was conducted from March 2022 to June 2022. The questionnaire was created based on a literature review and advice from an expert panel. This study determined its construct validity, criterion validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Results: The CVFQ consists of 15 items distributed among five categories: overall visual quality, overall visual function, distance vision, near vision, and glare. In the exploratory factor analysis of validity, the first three principal components explained 77.8% of the variance. The p-values in the Spearman correlation test comparing the pre- and postoperative total CVFQ score and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were 0.006 and 0.004, respectively. In the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was > 0.9 for internal consistency and the p-values of each subcategory were all significant in the analysis of test-retest reliability. Conclusions Our results indicate that the CVFQ is useful for measuring the visual quality and visual function of cataract patients in Korea.

Objective: To investigate the feasibility of using a deep learning-based analysis of auscultation data to predict significant stenosis of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) in patients undergoing hemodialysis requiring percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). Materials and Methods: Forty patients (24 male and 16 female; median age, 62.5 years) with dysfunctional native AVF were prospectively recruited. Digital sounds from the AVF shunt were recorded using a wireless electronic stethoscope before (pre-PTA) and after PTA (post-PTA), and the audio files were subsequently converted to mel spectrograms, which were used to construct various deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) models (DenseNet201, EfficientNetB5, and ResNet50). The performance of these models for diagnosing ≥ 50% AVF stenosis was assessed and compared. The ground truth for the presence of ≥ 50% AVF stenosis was obtained using digital subtraction angiography. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) was used to produce visual explanations for DCNN model decisions. Results: Eighty audio files were obtained from the 40 recruited patients and pooled for the study. Mel spectrograms of “pre-PTA” shunt sounds showed patterns corresponding to abnormal high-pitched bruits with systolic accentuation observed in patients with stenotic AVF. The ResNet50 and EfficientNetB5 models yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.99 and 0.98, respectively, at optimized epochs for predicting ≥ 50% AVF stenosis. However, GradCAM heatmaps revealed that only ResNet50 highlighted areas relevant to AVF stenosis in the mel spectrogram. Conclusion Mel spectrogram-based DCNN models, particularly ResNet50, successfully predicted the presence of significant AVF stenosis requiring PTA in this feasibility study and may potentially be used in AVF surveillance.

Purpose: We report the clinical characteristics and the primary underlying diseases of patients at high risk for failure of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in Korea. Methods: Patients at high risk of PKP failure among those who visited the ophthalmological clinics of tertiary care hospitals in Korea from April 2019 to April 2020 and who were indicated for PKP were retrospectively enrolled. We epidemiologically investigated 119 eyes of 104 patients via medical chart review. Results: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) keratitis was the most common primary underlying disease (26.1%). The most common primary cause of poor bilateral visual acuity was Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) (41.7%) followed by chemical burns (19.4%). Of the 119 eyes, 40.3% had a history of previous PKP and 20.2% had undergone three or more PKP. The average number of prior PKPs was 1.02 ± 1.46. Corneal neovascularization and corneal opacity were reported in 82.4 and 92.4% of cases, respectively. As the severity of these conditions increased, the eye distributions became larger. Of all patients, 47.9 and 31.9%, respectively, received the highest corneal neovascularization and corneal opacity scores. Conclusions Our study of patients at high risk of PKP failure improves our understanding of the relevant clinical characteristics and primary underlying diseases. Such patients require careful observation and aggressive treatment. Possible alternatives to PKP should be considered if PKP consistently fails. This study will aid clinicians in deciding whether to proceed to surgery if a poor postoperative prognosis is predictable.

Acceleration ; Artifacts ; Diffusion ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Rectum

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of bifocal versus trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation on visual quality after phacoemulsification in patients with cataracts. METHODS: Eighty-eight eyes from 63 patients were analyzed. Trifocal (AT LISA tri 839MP), bifocal (AcrySof IQ ReSTOR) and bifocal (Tecnis MF ZLB00) IOLs were implanted into 53, 18, and 17 eyes, respectively. Uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, refractive errors, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were measured at 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Refractive error was converted to a spherical equivalent and compared to predicted refraction calculated by IOL calculation formulas. RESULTS: Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity did not differ significantly between groups. One month after surgery, the mean refractive errors were −0.07 diopters (D) in the AT LISA tri 839MP group, +0.18 D in the AcrySof IQ ReSTOR group, and +0.31 D in the Tecnis MF ZLB00 group (p < 0.001). The predictive accuracy of IOL calculation formulas did not differ between groups. Contrast sensitivity, satisfaction, and spectacle independence in the trifocal group were comparable with those of the two bifocal groups. CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOL and two different types of bifocal IOL implantation were all effective for improving visual quality, although refractive error in patients with trifocal IOL shows myopic tendencies.
Cataract ; Contrast Sensitivity ; Humans ; Lens Implantation, Intraocular ; Lenses, Intraocular ; Patient Satisfaction ; Phacoemulsification ; Presbyopia ; Refractive Errors ; Visual Acuity