Adem UĞURLU, Emre ALTINKURT, Nilüfer GÖZÜM, Nurdan Gamze MUMCU TAŞLI

FAKOEMÜLSİFİKASYON CERRAHİSİ YAPILAN HASTALARDA HEDEF REFRAKTİF DEĞER İLE SONUÇ REFRAKTİF DEĞERİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Amaç: Fakoemülsifikasyon cerrahisi uygulanan hastalarda cerrahi öncesi hedeflenen refraktif değer ile cerrahi sonrası ortaya çıkan sonuç refraktif değerin karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Katarakt tanısı ile Ocak 2015- Mart 2017 arasında İstanbul Üniversitesi İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Göz Hastalıkları biriminde cerrahi uygulanan hastalar çalışmaya alındı. Cerrahi öncesi hedeflenen refraktif değer ile cerrahi sonrası ortaya çıkan sonuç refraktif değer arasındaki fark refraktif hata olarak kaydedildi. Bulgular: 107 hastanın 150 gözü çalışmaya alındı. 100 gözde SRK-T, 50 gözde SRK-2 formülü kullanıldı. Ortalama hedeflenen refraktif değer SRK-T formülü uygulanan grupta -0,21±0,17 D, SRK-2 formülü uygulanan grupta -0,22±0,29 D idi. Cerrahi sonrası ortalama refraktif değer SRK-T formülü uygulanan grupta -0,19±0,37 D, SRK-2 formülü uygulanan grupta -0,12±0,77 D idi. Ortalama refraktif sapma SRK-T formülü kullanılan grupta 0,2±0,25 D iken, SRK-2 formülü kullanılan grupta 0,51±0,59 D idi ve refraktif sapma değerleri açısından iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark mevcuttu (p=0,001). Sonuç: Fakoemülsifikasyon cerrahisi öncesi SRK-T biyometrik formülü kullanılan grupta SRK-2 biyometrik formülü kullanılan gruba göre anlamlı olarak hedeflenen refraktif değere daha yakın sonuçlar elde edildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Fakoemülsifikasyon, refraksiyon, katarakt

COMPARISON OF THE TARGET REFRACTIVE VALUE AND THE RESULTING REFRACTIVE VALUE IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING PHACOEMULSIFICATION SURGERY

Objective: To evaluate the target refractive value before and after surgery in patients who underwent phacoemulsification surgery. Material and Method: Patients diagnosed with cataracts who underwent surgery between January 2015 and March 2017 in the Department of Ophthalmology in Istanbul University’s Faculty of Medicine were accepted in this study. The difference between the target refractive value and the resulting refractive value was recorded as a refractive error. Results: 150 eyes of 107 patients were accepted and used in this study. The SRK-T formula was applied to 100 eyes and the SRK-2 formula were applied to 50 eyes. The mean targeted refractive value was -0.21±0.17 D in the SRK-T formula group and -0.22±0.29 D in the SRK-2 formula group. The mean resulting refractive value was -0.19±0.37 D in the SRK-T formula group and -0.12±0.77 D in the SRK-2 formula group. The mean refractive error was 0.2±0.25 D in the SRK-T formula group and 0.51±0.59 D in the SRK-2 formula group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.001). Conclusion: The SRK-T formula gave results which were significantly closer to the refractive target than the SRK-2 formula.

Keywords:

Phacoemulsification, refraction, cataract,

PDF

___

1. Kanski JJ, Bowling B. Eyelids. Nischal KK, Pearson A. Clinical Ophtalmology A systematic approach 7th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011. p. 270-285.
2. Apple DJ, Rabb MF. Ocular Pathology, 4th. St Louis: MosbyYear Book. 1991.
3. Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet 2017;S0140-6736(17)30544-5.
4. Yanoff M. Ophthalmology. Mosby 2004:1370-1.
5. Cankaya C, Doğanay S. Göz İçi Lens Gücü Hesaplaması ve Optik Biometri. Glo-Kat 2011;6:207-14.
6. Alastair K.O.Deniston,Philip I.Murray, Oxford Handbook of Ophthalmology, Oxford Universıty Press 2014:300-29.
7. Jeong J, Song H, Lee JK, Chuck RS, Kwon JW. The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas. BMC Ophthalmol 2017;17(1):62.
8. Liesegang TJ, Skuta GL, Cantor LB. Fundamentals and Principles of Ophthalmology Section 2. 1st ed. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2003: 44-5. 9. Afsun S, Pedram H. Clinically Relevant Biometry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2012;23(1):47-53.
10. Jeganathan VS, Robin AL, Woodward MA. Refractive error in underserved adults: causes and potential solutions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2017;28(4):299-304.
11. Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:2387-93.
12. Karabela Y, Eliacik M, Kaya F. Performance of the SRK/T formula using A-Scan ultrasound biometry after phacoemulsification in eyes with short and long axial lengths. BMC Ophthalmol 2016;16:96.
13. Hui S, Yi L. Comparison of two optical biometers in intraocular lens power calculation. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:931-4.
14. Suto C, Shimamura E, Watanabe I. Comparison of 2 optical biometers and evaluation of the Camellin-Calossi intraocular lens formula for normal cataractous eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:2366-72.
15. Kaya V, Küçüksümer Y, Yılmaz OF. Kısa aksiyel uzunluğu olan gözlerde IOL formüllerinin karşılaştırılması. T Oft Gaz 2001;31:57-60.
16. Oderinlo O, Hassan AO, Oluyadi FO, Ogunro AO, Okonkwo ON, Ulaikere MO, Ashano O.Refractive aim and visual outcome after phacoemulsification: A 2-year review from a Tertiary Private Eye Hospital in Sub-Saharan Africa. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(2):147-52.
17. Poley BJ, Lindstrom RL, Samuelson TW, et al. Intraocular pressure reduction after phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation in glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes: Evaluation of a causal relationship between the natural lens and open-angle glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1946-55.