Satisfaction of patients undergoing cataract surgery is dependent on precise predictions of refractive outcomes. As accurate biometry and power precision of intraocular lens (IOL) have gained importance, development of various modern diagnostic techniques has enabled the control Purpose: To evaluate the agreement in ocular biometry outcomes measured by three different devices, the IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700, and Lenstar LS900, and compare the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery obtained using those three devices. Methods: Medical records of 178 eyes of 89 patients who underwent ocular biometry with the three devices were retrospectively reviewed, and 124 eyes met the inclusion criteria. Paired comparisons were performed for axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), and anterior chamber depth and quantified their agreement using Bland-Altman plots. Subgroup analyses were done according to the AL and the Km. Refractive outcomes were compared with respect to absolute prediction errors after cataract surgery in 54 eyes. Results: Among 124 eyes, 12, 3, and 5 eyes failed to be measured of AL by IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700 and Lenstar LS900, respectively. The AL measured by Lenstar LS900 was longer than that measured by IOL Master 500 and IOL Master 700 (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, respectively). Subgroup analysis revealed that these results were statistically significant only in long eyes (AL >25.5 mm). Km measured using the IOL Master 500 was steeper than that measured with the IOL Master 700 or Lenstar LS900 (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). anterior chamber depth measured by IOL Master 500 was shallower than that measured by IOL Master 700 or Lenstar LS900 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Ocular biometry measurements by the three devices showed high agreement with narrow 95% limits of agreement. Absolute prediction errors from the 3 devices showed no statistically significant differences after cataract surgery. Conclusions: The IOL Master 700 and Lenstar LS900 demonstrated superior acquisition rates of biometric measurements compared with the IOL Master 500. Ocular biometry using the 3 different devices showed high agreement, although statistically significant differences were observed; however, since there was no difference in predicting the refractive outcomes, those differences are clinically negligible.

Purpose: To evaluate the protective effect of applying an ophthalmic viscosurgical device (OVD) to the ocular surface during cataract surgery and its ability to prevent dry eye syndrome. Methods: Twenty-four patients aged 50 to 75 years who underwent cataract surgery at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and agreed to participate in the study were included and divided into two groups: a study group who underwent cataract surgery after application of an OVD to the ocular surface, and a control group who underwent cataract surgery without application of an OVD. DisCoVisc was used as the OVD in the study group, while other factors including surgical techniques and administration of anesthetic agents were performed in both groups in the same manner. Indicators of dry eye syndrome including ocular staining score, tear break-up time, and tear osmolality were analyzed. Ocular surface disease index and a visual analog scale were analyzed for dry eye symptoms, and the amount of balanced salt solution used during surface irrigation and operation time were also analyzed. Results: Significant improvement in the tear break-up time, corneal ocular staining score, and ocular surface disease index score in the study group compared with the control group one week after operation (by the Mann-Whitney test). Use of OVD was associated with longer operating time. Conclusions: OVD applied to the ocular surface during cataract surgery had a protective effect on the ocular surface one week after surgery.

CNV can be combined with retinal granuloma due to ocular toxocariasis. Repeated intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents can be efficacious for regressing toxocariasis-associated CNV and improving vision.