header
Image from OpenLibrary

Evaluation of Barrett Universal II formula for intra-ocular lens power calculation in high myopic patients using optical biometry / Demiana Wadie Aziz Baskharone ; Supervised Nihal Adel Hassan , Moataz Hamed Mohamed , Nermeen Mostafa Mostafa Bahgat

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Demiana Wadie Aziz Baskharone , 2020Description: 104 P. : charts ; 25cmOther title:
  • تقييم معادلة باريت العالمية ٢ لمقياس قوة العدسة المزروعة داخل العين فى حالات قصر النظر باستخدام المقياس العدسة الضوئى [Added title page title]
Subject(s): Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also as CD
Dissertation note: Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Ophthalmology Summary: Patients & Methods: This study reviewed 34 eyes of 34 high myopic patients, with axial length {u2265} 26.0 mm, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with implantation of the same one piece IOL in the bag aiming for -1 diopter postoperative refraction after 1 month. The refractive prediction error was calculated for IOL power calculation formulae SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (Barrett U2) by subtracting the predicted refraction from the actual refraction postoperatively. The mean numerical error (MNE), the percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes, and median absolute error (MedAE) were determined for each formula and compared. Results: The Barrett U2 produced the lowest MNE (-0.11 D) close to zero and lowering the percentage to 44.1 % of eyes would have hyperopic outcomes. Furthermore, Barrett U2 had the lowest MedAE (0.15 D; MAE of 0.45) followed by Haigis and SRK/T (0.40; MAE of 0.64 and 0.47; MAE of 0.63 respectively). There was a significant difference between Barrett U2 and the two other formulae even when compared separately. There was no significant difference between Haigis and SRK/T when compared.The Barrett U2 formula met the benchmark criteria for postoperative refraction results as the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was 82.4 % which was statistically significantly higher than the other two formulae
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Home library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Thesis Thesis قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.11.24.M.Sc.2020.De.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Not for loan 01010110081946000
CD - Rom CD - Rom مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.11.24.M.Sc.2020.De.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 81946.CD Not for loan 01020110081946000

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Ophthalmology

Patients & Methods: This study reviewed 34 eyes of 34 high myopic patients, with axial length {u2265} 26.0 mm, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with implantation of the same one piece IOL in the bag aiming for -1 diopter postoperative refraction after 1 month. The refractive prediction error was calculated for IOL power calculation formulae SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (Barrett U2) by subtracting the predicted refraction from the actual refraction postoperatively. The mean numerical error (MNE), the percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes, and median absolute error (MedAE) were determined for each formula and compared. Results: The Barrett U2 produced the lowest MNE (-0.11 D) close to zero and lowering the percentage to 44.1 % of eyes would have hyperopic outcomes. Furthermore, Barrett U2 had the lowest MedAE (0.15 D; MAE of 0.45) followed by Haigis and SRK/T (0.40; MAE of 0.64 and 0.47; MAE of 0.63 respectively). There was a significant difference between Barrett U2 and the two other formulae even when compared separately. There was no significant difference between Haigis and SRK/T when compared.The Barrett U2 formula met the benchmark criteria for postoperative refraction results as the percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was 82.4 % which was statistically significantly higher than the other two formulae

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.