La catarata sigue siendo la principal causa de ceguera en economías emergentes, incluyendo México

Bastar, Pedro A. Gomez; Lansingh, Van C.; Penniecook-Sawyers, Jason A.; Suazo, Benito Celis; Castro, Francisco Martínez; Batlle, Juan F.; Star, Ellery Marino Lopez

doi:10.1016/j.mexoft.2014.10.001

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…About 90% of blind people in the world live in countries with emerging economies and more than 80% are over 50 years of age. According to an epidemiological study on cataract carried out in our country, it was identified that in the northern part of the country, the prevalence of cataract in people over 50 years of age is 1.53% and 2.3% in the southern part of the country 1 . Cataract surgery is the most frequent ophthalmological surgery, and to achieve the desired refractive result, biometric measurements of the eye are crucial for the proper calculation of the intraocular lens (IOL) 2 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Refractive error with the Barrett True-K No History versus Panacea formula in cataract operated patients with a history of radial keratotomy

Mena-Linares¹,

Ponce-Martínez²,

Messina-Baas³

et al. 2021

HGMX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The challenge of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after refractive surgery such as radial keratotomy (RK) remains unresolved after two decades. At present, there is an increase in patients with this history. Objectives: The objectives of the study were to determine the difference in refractive error after surgery between the Barrett True-K No History and Panacea formulas, for the calculation of IOL in cataract operated patients with a history of RK. Materials and methods: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional, and retrospective study was conducted. The power of the IOL was calculated, with the Barrett True-K No History and Panacea formulas, and the IOLMaster 500 biometer. Two groups were studied. The predicted spherical equivalent was adjusted to obtain the power of the final implanted lens. The result of the predicted spherical equivalent was subtracted from the actual spherical equivalent, thus the refractive error was obtained for each formula. Student's t-test was used for independent groups. Results: The error with the Barrett True-K No History formula was −0.16 ± 1.12, whereas the error with the Panacea formula was −0.93 ± 1.22. p = 0.346. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference when comparing these two formulas, which showed that Panacea is as effective as Barrett True-K No History in cataract-operated patients with a history of RK.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%