Factors associated with refractive prediction error after phacotrabeculectomy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2772363/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Factors associated with refractive prediction error after phacotrabeculectomy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2772363/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: To compare refractive prediction errors between phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification.

Methods: Refractive prediction error was defined as the difference of spherical equivalent between the predicted value using the Barrett Universal II formula and the actual value obtained at postoperative one month. Forty-eight (48) eyes that had undergone uncomplicated phacotrabeculectomy (19 eyes, open-angle glaucoma; 29 eyes, angle-closure glaucoma) were matched with 48 eyes that had undergone uncomplicated phacoemulsification by age, average keratometry value and axial length, and their prediction errors were compared. The factors associated with prediction error were analyzed by multivariable regression analyses.

Results: The absolute prediction error was larger in the phacotrabeculectomy group than in the phacoemulsification group (0.51 ± 0.37 Diopters vs. 0.38 ± 0.22, P=0.033). Larger absolute prediction error was associated with both longer axial length (P=0.010) and higher intraocular pressure difference (P=0.012). A logistic regression analysis showed that hyperopic shift (prediction error>0) was associated with shallower preoperative anterior chamber depth (P=0.024)and larger intraocular pressure difference (P=0.031). In the phacotrabeculectomy group, the prediction error was inversely correlated with axial length: long eyes showed myopic shift and short eyes hyperopic shift (P=0.002).

Conclusions: Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation might be less accurate in phacotrabeculectomy than in phacoemulsification due to large axial length and anterior chamber depth changes with intraocular pressure lowering. Surgeons therefore should be aware of the possibility of worse refractive outcomes when planning phacotrabeculectomy especially in eyes with high preoperative intraocular pressure, shallow anterior chamber depth, and/or extreme axial length.

Phacotrabeculectomy

Glaucoma

Cataract surgery

Prediction error

Refraction

Glaucoma and cataract are major and often coexisting causes of visual impairment in the elderly.[1] When these diseases require surgical intervention, clinicians have to decide whether to perform glaucoma filtration surgery and phacoemulsification at the same time or sequentially. Phacotrabeculectomy has several advantages in terms of minimizing postoperative IOP spikes and reducing surgery time and cost, with less recovery time.[2–4] Even in cases with angle-closure glaucoma (ACG), phacotrabeculectomy has been reported to be a better option than phacoemulsification alone.[5, 6]

As a refractive surgery, however, phacotrabeculectomy has a limitation. Trabeculectomy induces changes to ocular biometry with regard to axial length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD).[7–11] Such changes might increase prediction error, since intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is based on preoperative ocular biometry. Several studies have compared refractive outcomes between phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification alone.[11–17] The results, however, were inconsistent, and moreover, the prediction error had been calculated using a third-generation IOL calculation formula, which uses only AL and keratometry values to determine the effective lens position.[18] Currently, IOL power calculation is based on fourth-generation formulas that incorporate additional variables, including ACD, in order to predict the effective lens position more accurately.[18, 19] This enhanced accuracy might not be relevant to phacotrabeculectomy cases though, since glaucoma patients with uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) would have pathologic aqueous outflow pathway and, thus, deviated preoperative ACD values. Further, this deformation would be different between ACG and open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients. For purposes of clarification and confirmation, therefore, the present study compared post-phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification prediction errors using a fourth-generation IOL power calculation formula (i.e., the Barrett II Universal formula).

This retrospective comparative study was conducted following the tenets set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center. Between January 2009 and June 2022, glaucoma patients who had undergone uncomplicated phacotrabeculectomy performed by either of two glaucoma specialists (KML or SHK) at the Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center were included. Control cases were chosen from among phacoemulsification cases (without glaucoma) performed by the same surgeons to match each phacotrabeculectomy case in age, average keratometry value (average K), and axial length (AL). The exclusion criteria were as follows: extracapsular bag location of IOL (sulcus or scleral fixation); previous history of ocular surgery such as corneal refractive surgery; surgical complications such as posterior capsular rupture or concomitant anterior/posterior vitrectomy, and less than one-month follow-up on refractive errors.

Preoperatively, all of the subjects underwent comprehensive ophthalmologic examinations that included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessment, refraction, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, Goldmann applanation tonometry, gonioscopy, dilated funduscopic examination, keratometry (RKT-7700; Nidek, Hiroshi, Japan), and ocular biometry (IOLMaster version 5; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA). In all phacotrabeculectomy cases, IOP and ocular biometry were measured after maximal medical treatment to reduce IOP as much as possible. Among the ocular biometry values, ACD and AL were used in the analysis.

In general, trabeculectomy was performed through the fornix-based conjunctival flap and superior rectangular 3.5 × 2.5 mm scleral flap with intraoperative mitomycin C (0.4mg/mL for 3 minutes). Phacoemulsification was performed through a 2.75mm clear corneal incision at a different site from the trabeculectomy, and single-piece acrylic IOLs were placed in the bag in all cases. The postoperative IOP and refractive errors were measured at one month after surgery. \(\varDelta\)IOP was defined as the difference between preoperative IOP and postoperative IOP. The prediction error was obtained by subtracting the actual postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) from the predicted SE using the Barrett Universal II formula.

Data analysis

The intergroup comparisons (phacotrabeculectomy vs. phacoemulsification) were performed by way of the independent t-test for the continuous variables and by chi-square testing for the categorical variables. Comparisons by diagnosis (OAG, ACG, and control) were performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, applying the post hoc Scheffe test for the continuous variables and the chi-square test for the categorical variables. Univariable and multivariable analyses were run to determine the factors associated with prediction errors, and parameters with a P value less than 0.10 in the univariable analysis were included in the subsequent multivariable analysis. A logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with hyperopic shift (prediction error > 0). Statistical analyses were performed with commercially available software (Stata version 16.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). The data herein are presented as mean ± standard deviations except where stated otherwise, and the cutoff for statistical significance was set to P < 0.05.

A total 53 phacotrabeculectomy eyes were enrolled between January 2009 and June 2022. Of these, one eye was excluded due to combined anterior vitrectomy due to zonular laxity, one eye due to IOL sulcus insertion, one eye due to previous history of trabeculectomy, and two eyes due to follow-up loss in the aspect of refractive errors, which resulted in a final sample of 48 eyes of 48 subjects (19 OAG eyes and 29 ACG eyes). During the same period, 48 eyes were matched by age, average keratometry value and AL from the uneventful phacoemulsification cases without glaucoma history. The two groups’ demographic and clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1: there were no differences in age, sex distribution, AL, or average K, whereas the phacotrabeculectomy group had higher preoperative IOP (P < 0.001), larger \(\varDelta\)IOP (P < 0.001), and shallower preoperative ACD (P = 0.047).

Table 1

Demographic comparison
	Phacotrabeculectomy (N = 48)	Phacoemulsification (N = 48)	P value
Age, years	66.1 ± 11.1	68.9 ± 10.0	0.198^*
Sex (Male / Female)	19 / 29	20 / 28	0.835^†
AL, mm	23.5 ± 1.5	23.6 ± 1.6	0.814^*
ACD, µm	2.77 ± 0.54	2.99 ± 0.54	0.047^*
Average K, Diopter	44.3 ± 1.6	44.4 ± 1.4	0.722^*
Preoperative IOP, mmHg	27.6 ± 11.5	13.0 ± 3.9	< 0.001^*
\(\varDelta\) IOP, mmHg	16.5 ± 12.1	2.1 ± 2.6	< 0.001^*
Prediction error, Diopter	-0.23 ± 0.59	-0.31 ± 0.31	0.436
Absolute prediction error, Diopter	0.51 ± 0.37	0.38 ± 0.22	0.033
Diagnosis		OAG (39.6%) ACG (60.4%)
AL = axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth; IOP = intraocular pressure; OAG = open-angle glaucoma; ACG = angle-closure glaucoma
^*Comparison performed using independent-t test
^†Comparison performed using Chi-square test

The prediction error was − 0.23 ± 0.59 Diopters in the phacotrabeculectomy group and − 0.31 ± 0.31 in the phacoemulsification group (P = 0.436). The absolute prediction error (absolute value of prediction error) was larger in the phacotrabeculectomy group than in the phacoemulsification group (0.51 ± 0.37 Diopters vs. 0.38 ± 0.22, P = 0.033, Table 1). The factors associated with the absolute prediction errors were analyzed by multiple regression analyses using two models, which showed that longer AL (P = 0.010 in model 1, P = 0.020 in model 2), larger \(\varDelta\)IOP (P = 0.012), and phacotrabeculectomy (P = 0.025) were associated with larger absolute prediction error (Table 2).

Table 2

Factors associated with absolute prediction error
	Univariable analysis			Multivariable analysis (Model 1)^*			Multivariable analysis (Model 2)^*
	Coefficient	95% CI	P	Coefficient	95% CI	P	Coefficient	95% CI	P
Age, years	-0.001	-0.007, 0.005	0.765
Female (vs. male sex)	-0.062	-0.190, 0.066	0.341
AL, mm	0.046	0.006, 0.087	0.026	0.053	0.013, 0.092	0.010	0.047	0.008, 0.087	0.020
ACD, µm	0.031	-0.086, 0.148	0.598
Average K, Diopter	-0.009	-0.051, 0.034	0.694
\(\varDelta\)IOP, mmHg	0.006	0.001, 0.012	0.030	0.007	0.002, 0.012	0.012
Phacotrabeculectomy (vs. control group)	0.135	0.011, 0.258	0.033				0.138	0.018, 0.259	0.025
CI = confidence interval; AL = axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth; IOP = intraocular pressure

*Variables with P < 0.10 in the univariable analysis were included in the subsequent multivariable analysis. Owing to multicollinearity between the groups and \(\varDelta\) IOP, two multivariable analysis models were constructed. The result of multivariable analysis with backward elimination was equivalent to that of Model 1. Statistically significant values (P < 0.05) are shown in bold.

Hyperopic shift of prediction error was observed in 23 (24%) cases: 15 phacotrabeculectomy cases and 8 phacoemulsification cases (P = 0.094). The logistic regression analyses revealed that shallower preoperative ACD (P = 0.024) and larger \(\varDelta\)IOP (P = 0.004 in model 1, P = 0.031 in model 2) were associated with higher odds of hyperopic shift (Table 3).

Table 3

Risk factors for hyperopic prediction error
	Univariable analysis			Multivariable analysis (Model 1)^*			Multivariable analysis (Model 2)^*
	OR	95% CI	P	OR	95% CI	P	OR	95% CI	P
Age, years	1.030	0.982, 1.081	0.220
Female (vs. male sex)	1.784	0.655, 4.856	0.257
AL, mm	0.570	0.341, 0.953	0.032	0.637	0.380, 1.067	0.087
ACD, µm	0.180	0.062, 0.517	0.001				0.277	0.091, 0.842	0.024
Average K, Diopter	1.186	0.862, 1.631	0.296
\(\varDelta\)IOP, mmHg	1.072	1.028, 1.118	0.001	1.066	1.021, 1.113	0.004	1.051	1.005, 1.099	0.031
CI = confidence interval; AL = axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth; IOP = intraocular pressure

^*Variables with P < 0.10 in the univariable analysis were included in the subsequent multivariable analysis. Because of multicollinearity between AL and ACD, two models were constructed. The result of multivariable analysis with backward elimination was equivalent to that of Model 2. Statistically significant values (P < 0.05) are shown in bold.

The phacotrabeculectomy group consisted of OAG and ACG subgroups. The AL was longer in the OAG subgroup than in the control or ACG subgroup (24.6 ± 1.7 mm vs. 23.6 ± 1.6 mm vs. 22.8 ± 0.7 mm, P < 0.001), whereas the preoperative ACD was shallower in ACG than in the control or OAG (2.43 ± 0.31 µm vs. 2.99 ± 0.54 µm vs. 3.28 ± 0.38 µm, P < 0.001). \(\varDelta\)IOP was in the (highest to lowest) order of ACG, OAG, and control group (21.1 ± 12.7 mmHg vs. 9.5 ± 6.7 mmHg vs. 2.1 ± 2.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). The prediction errors were − 0.41 ± 0.51 Diopters in OAG and − 0.12 ± 0.62 in ACG, neither of which statistically differed from the control group (P = 0.077). In the multiple regression analysis, the prediction error showed statistical significance with AL (P = 0.002) and a marginal significance with preoperative ACD (P = 0.056, Table 4, Fig. 1, Additional file 1).

This scatter plot shows prediction errors according to axial length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) based on the Barrett Universal ll formula. The red dots indicate angle-closure glaucoma (ACG) patients, the blue dots open-angle glaucoma (OAG) patients, and the green dots control patients who had undergone phacoemulsification only. In the three-dimensional plot (left), intraocular pressure (IOP) change is marked by sphere size: large sphere, \(\varDelta\)IOP ≥ 10 mmHg; small sphere, \(\varDelta\)IOP ≤ 10 mmHg. The regression lines are drawn for AL (right top) and ACD (right bottom). Please note the larger prediction error in the OAG and ACG patients who had undergone phacotrabeculectomy: OAG patients with long AL showed myopic shift, while ACG patients with short ACD showed hyperopic shift. Prediction error was larger in cases with remarkable IOP change.

Table 4

Factors associated with prediction error after phacotrabeculectomy
	Univariable analysis			Multivariable analysis (Model 1)^*			Multivariable analysis (Model 2)^*
	Coefficient	95% CI	P	Coefficient	95% CI	P	Coefficient	95% CI	P
Age, years	0.007	-0.008, 0.023	0.359
Female (vs. male sex)	0.402	0.068, 0.736	0.019	0.146	-0.206, 0.498	0.407	0.296	-0.063, 0.654	0.103
AL, mm	-0.195	-0.297, -0.094	< 0.001	-0.213	-0.346, -0.080	0.002
ACD, µm	-0.418	-0.720, -0.115	0.008				-0.472	-0.957, 0.013	0.056
Average K, Diopter	0.064	-0.043, 0.171	0.236
\(\varDelta\) IOP, mmHg	0.012	-0.002, 0.026	0.084	0.011	-0.004, 0026	0.133	0.005	-0.011, 0.020	0.556
ACG (vs. OAG)	0.294	-0.049, 0.638	0.091	-0.277	-0.709, 0.155	0.203	-0.273	-0.814, 0.268	0.315
CI = confidence interval; AL = axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth; IOP = intraocular pressure; ACG = angle-closure glaucoma; OAG = open-angle glaucoma

*Variables with P < 0.10 in the univariable analysis were included in the subsequent multivariable analysis. Because of multicollinearity between AL and ACD, two models were constructed. Multivariable analysis with backward elimination left only AL as the associative factor. Statistically significant values (P < 0.05) are shown in bold.

In this study, we discovered that absolute prediction error was larger in the phacotrabeculectomy group than in the phacoemulsification group. Longer AL and larger IOP change were the risk factors for higher absolute prediction error. Hyperopic shift (= positive value of prediction error) was associated with shallower preoperative ACD and larger IOP change, both of which were more common in ACG eyes. In the phacotrabeculectomy group, the prediction error showed an inverse correlation with AL, which means that eyes with long AL showed myopic shift while eyes with short AL showed hyperopic shift. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare prediction errors after phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification using the Barrett Universal II formula, which incorporates both ACD and AL as measured preoperatively.

Final refractive errors can be either myopic (= negative value of prediction error) or hyperopic (= positive value of prediction error) by prediction. The phacotrabeculectomy group had larger deviations from the prediction in both myopic and hyperopic shift cases, and thus, averaging them would have concealed the actual refractive errors; this is why we used the absolute value of prediction error. Several studies also have reported worse refractive outcomes when phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy were performed simultaneously.[12, 13, 15, 17] In the current study, AL and larger IOP change were both associated with larger prediction error. We speculated that the final refractive error would be affected more in the phacotrabeculectomy group, since AL and IOP presumably would have changed more after phacotrabeculectomy.

AL is known to be shortened after either trabeculectomy[7, 9, 10, 20] or phacotrabeculectomy,[11] and extent of AL decrease is correlated with amount of IOP reduction.[7, 10, 11, 20] Although AL shortening also has been reported after phacoemulsification alone, AL shortening was more prominent after phacotrabeculectomy in that study.[11] Accordingly, postoperative AL would deviate more from preoperative AL in phacotrabeculectomy than in phacoemulsification. Since the IOL power calculation formulas were developed based on phacoemulsification data, their predictions would be less accurate in phacotrabeculectomy cases. Notably, Lee et al. reported a post-trabeculectomy association between prediction error and IOP change.[13] We speculated that large IOP change would be associated with greater AL shortening, which would result in more prediction error in phacotrabeculectomy.

Several studies, however, have reported that prediction error did not differ between phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification.[11, 14, 16] These studies calculated prediction error using the SRK II formula (if AL ≤ 26mm) and SRK/T formula (if AL > 26mm)[14] or the average of the SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q formulas.[11] As third-generation formulas, all of them (SRK/T, SRK II, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q) use only AL and keratometry values in their IOL power calculation, under the assumption that the effective lens position is directly related to AL.[18, 21] We speculated that the non-applicatoin of ACD might have been the reason for the lack of intergroup difference in those studies. In the OAG eyes with high preoperative IOP, the preoperative ACD might have been over-measured due to stasis of aqueous humor in the anterior chamber. If so, the actual effective lens position after phacotrabeculectomy would have been more anteriorly located than the effective lens position calculated from the preoperative ACD, resulting thereby in myopic shift. Contrastingly, in ACG eyes with shallow ACD, the actual effective lens position after phacotrabeculectomy would be more posteriorly located due to anterior chamber deepening, thus resulting in hyperopic shift. To summarize, prediction errors might become greater with the use of fourth-generation formulas, since these measure not only the AL but also many other parameters, including ACD, for more accurate determination of effective lens position.

Prediction error also is dependent on the applied formula, since it is well known that the accuracy of each formula is dependent on the AL range.[21, 22] For consistency of comparison, however, it would be better to use a singular IOL calculation formula. Thus, we used the Barrett Universal II formula, which is considered to be one of the best options for covering the entire AL range.[19, 23] By this means, we demonstrated worse refractive outcomes in the phacotrabeculectomy group over the entire range of AL.

Interestingly, our phacoemulsification group also showed a myopic shift of -0.3 Diopters. One possible explanation is twofold. First, AL shortening also was noted after phacoemulsification only.[11] This change may vary among individuals, since it might be associated with tissue properties, as supported by a previous study showing that eyes with differing corneal hysteresis showed differing AL shortening after trabeculectomy.[24] Thus, comparison of populations with different tissue properties would lead to slight myopic shifts from predictions. The second part of our tentative explanation for the myopic shift in the phacoemulsification group is the difference in crystalline lens anatomy among individuals. The geometric center of the crystalline lens is located anteriorly to the exact half point along the lens thickness: that is, there is more convexity to the posterior side than to the anterior side.[25] Thus, the effective lens position might be also located more anteriorly than the calculated position after phacoemulsification. Moreover, this anterior/posterior difference of lens shape is affected by both thickness and age.[25] Further study accounting for these factors would be helpful in order to reduce refractive errors after either phacotrabeculectomy or phacoemulsification.

This study has several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small and not evenly distributed along the whole range of AL. Second, due to the retrospective nature of the study, the applied treatment protocol in the phacotrabeculectomy group (e.g., preoperative anti-glaucoma medications) might have differed among patients. Third, we were unable to obtain postoperative AL and ACD for comparison. Further prospective longitudinal study would be helpful in order to evaluate the effect of ocular biometry changes on final refractive outcomes after phacotrabeculectomy. Fourth, the follow-up period was short: the final refractive errors were determined at postoperative one month. Although several studies have reported that refractive error was stabilized one week after phacoemulsification,[26, 27] it is unknown whether the same would be true after phacotrabeculectomy.[28] Some post-phacotrabeculectomy patients have shown unstable refractive errors when followed up for longer periods.[28] Therefore, it should be noted that refractive error could change with IOP change, especially in glaucoma patients who had undergone phacotrabeculectomy and been followed up longer. Fifth and finally, we were unable to suggest a better way to minimize prediction error. Simply, we categorized high-risk patients of worse refractive outcome. Future study should focus on such patients in order to find a means of achieving better refractive outcomes.

In conclusion, refractive prediction error was larger in phacotrabeculectomy than in phacoemulsification cases. Such inaccuracies may accrue from AL and IOP changes, both of which resulted in changes of effective lens position. Surgeons therefore should be aware of the possibility of worse refractive outcomes when planning phacotrabeculectomy in eyes with high preoperative IOP, shallow ACD, and/or extreme AL.

ACG: angle-closure glaucoma, AL: axial length, ACD: anterior chamber depth, IOL: intraocular lens, IOP: intraocular pressure, OAG: open-angle glaucoma, Average K: average keratometry value, BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity, SE: spherical equivalent,

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This retrospective comparative study was conducted following the tenets set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center. An exemption for the requirement for informed consent was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center due to the retrospective design of the study.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study is included in the manuscript. Raw data won’t be disclosured. For more data/information related to the data, contact the corresponding author: Kyoung Min Lee ([email protected]).

Competing interest: None.

Financial Support: This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI22C1234). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author’s contributions: JHS: Conception and design,data collection and analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript. SHK: Revising the manuscript SHO: Data interpretation and analysis. KML: Conception and design, data clearing, data interpretation and analysis, revising the manuscript. KML was major contributors in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements: Not applicable.

Causes of blindness and vision impairment. in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9:e144–e60.
Krupin T, Feitl ME, Bishop KI. Postoperative intraocular pressure rise in open-angle glaucoma patients after cataract or combined cataract-filtration surgery. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:579–84.
Murchison JF Jr, Shields MB. Limbal-based vs fornix-based conjunctival flaps in combined extracapsular cataract surgery and glaucoma filtering procedure. Am J Ophthalmol. 1990;109:709–15.
Vaideanu D, Mandal K, Hildreth A, Fraser SG, Phelan PS. Visual and refractive outcome of one-site phacotrabeculectomy compared with temporal approach phacoemulsification. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008;2:569–74.
Chan PP, Li EY, Tsoi KKF, Kwong YY, Tham CC. Cost-effectiveness of Phacoemulsification Versus Combined Phacotrabeculectomy for Treating Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2017;26:911–22.
El Sayed YM, Elhusseiny AM, Albalkini AS, El Sheikh RH, Osman MA. Mitomycin C-augmented phacotrabeculectomy versus phacoemulsification in primary angle-closure glaucoma: a randomized controlled study. J Glaucoma. 2019;28:911–15.
Francis BA, Wang M, Lei H, Du L, Minckler D, Green R, et al. Changes in axial length following trabeculectomy and glaucoma drainage device surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:17–20.
Claridge K, Galbraith J, Karmel V, Bates A. The effect of trabeculectomy on refraction, keratometry and corneal topography. Eye. 1995;9:292–98.
Husain R, Li W, Gazzard G, Foster PJ, Chew PT, Oen FT, et al. Longitudinal changes in anterior chamber depth and axial length in Asian subjects after trabeculectomy surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:852–56.
Kook MS, Kim HB, Lee SU. Short-term effect of mitomycin-C augmented trabeculectomy on axial length and corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:518–23.
Law SK, Mansury AM, Vasudev D, Caprioli J. Effects of combined cataract surgery and trabeculectomy with mitomycin C on ocular dimensions. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1021–5.
Bae HW, Lee YH, Kim DW, Lee T, Hong S, Seong GJ, et al. Effect of trabeculectomy on the accuracy of intraocular lens calculations in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;44:465–71.
Lee JS, Lee CE, Park JH, Seo S, Lee KW. Refractive Error Induced by Combined Phacotrabeculectomy. JKOS. 2018;59:1173–80.
Lee Y-C, Su C-C, Wang T-H, Huang J-Y. Refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in patients receiving trabeculectomy—a comparative study of combined and sequential approaches. J Formos Med Assoc. 2021;120:415–21.
Ong C, Nongpiur M, Peter L, Perera SA. Combined approach to phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy results in less ideal refractive outcomes compared with the sequential approach. J Glaucoma. 2016;25:e873–e78.
Tzu JH, Shah CT, Galor A, Junk AK, Sastry A, Wellik SR. Refractive outcomes of combined cataract and glaucoma surgery. J Glaucoma. 2015;24:161–64.
Chan JC, Lai JS, Tham CC. Comparison of postoperative refractive outcome in phacotrabeculectomy and phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:26–9.
Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:472–85.
Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:1490–500.
Cashwell LF, Martin CA. Axial length decrease accompanying successful glaucoma filtration surgery. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2307–11.
Kane JX, Chang DF. Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry: A Review. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:e94–e114.
Kim JW, Eom Y, Yoon EG, Choi Y, Song JS, Jeong JW, et al. Algorithmic intraocular lens power calculation formula selection by keratometry, anterior chamber depth and axial length. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022;100:e701–e09.
Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:169–78.
Huang C, Zhang M, Huang Y, Chen B, Lam DS, Congdon N. Corneal hysteresis is correlated with reduction in axial length after trabeculectomy. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37:381–7.
Haddad JS, Rocha KM, Yeh K, Waring GOt. Lens anatomy parameters with intraoperative spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in cataractous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:253–60.
Khan AM, Waldner DM, Luong M, Sanders E, Crichton A, Ford BA. Stabilization of refractive error and associated factors following small incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22:1–10.
Ostri C, Holfort SK, Fich MS, Riise P. Automated refraction is stable 1 week after uncomplicated cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2018;96:149–53.
Kang YS, Sung MS, Heo H, Ji YS, Park SW. Long-term outcomes of prediction error after combined phacoemulsification and trabeculectomy in glaucoma patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21:1–9.

No competing interests reported.

Additionalfile1.html

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Factors associated with refractive prediction error after phacotrabeculectomy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1