| Objective:To investigate the relationship between first and second eye refractive errors after cataract surgery,to test the hypothesis that the refraction outcome of the second eye can be adjust according to the first refraction error.Methods : 164 eyes of 82 patients who underwent bilateral sequential phacoemulsification cataract surgery with implantation of the IOL in the capsular bag in our hospital from October 2015 through October 2017 were indentified.Biological parameters of the eyes were measured by A-type ultrasound and manual keratometer.The SRK-T,Hoffer Q and Holladay formulas were used for IOL power calculations.The refractive error was evaluated by subtracting the predicted refraction from the postoperative refraction measured 1 month after surgery.The differences in binocular Biological measurements and the correlation of postoperative refractive error were analyzed.A range from a 10% to 100% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions were applied to the second eye,that’s to test the effect of incorporating first eye refractive error on calculations of the refractive target for the second eye.The effect of adjusting the proportion of the first eye prediction error taken into account as a correction factor,when calculating the second eye mean absolute refractive error,with respect to 3 first eye prediction error groups: less than 0.5 D,between 0.50 and 1.0D,exceeded 1.00 D.Results:1.Axial lengths of the first eyes ranged from 21.75 to29.66 mm with a mean±standard deviation of 23.42±1.34 mm.Axial lengths of the second eyes ranged from 21.69 to27.98 mm with a mean ± standard deviation of 23.37±1.21 mm.The axial lengths were no statistically significant mean interocular difference(P=0.818).2.The refractive error the first eyes ranged from-1.97 to 2.17 D,the mean ± standard deviation of first eye absolute refractive error is 0.57±0.45 D,30.5%,52.4%,and 81.7% within 0.25 D,0.50 D and 1.00 D.The refractive error of the second eyes ranged from-1.55 to 1.88 D,the mean ± standard deviation of second eye absolute refractive error is 0.48±0.37 D,28%,62.2%,and 91.5% within 0.25 D,0.50 D and 1.00 D.The refractive errors were strongly correlated between eyes(r=0.909,P<0.001)with no statistically significant mean interocular difference(P=0.827).3.1.1 10% to 100% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions reduced the mean absolute refractive error of second eyes effectively.When a 50% correction factor was applied to second eyes,it improved second eye refractive outcomes to 63.4%,89%,and 100% within 0.25 D,0.50 D and 1.00 D.Applied correction factors more than 50% to second eyes improved second eye refractive outcomes to 100% within 1.00 D.When a 80% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.3.1.2 When CFs of 10% to 100% were applied to second eyes of patients with the first eye PE,it reduced the absolute refractive error and the improvements were significant.Difference between 80% correction and 10%-50% or 100% correction was significant when compared the mean absolute error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 80% correction and 60% 70% or 90% correction.3.2.1 For patients with first eye absolute refractive error less than 0.5 D,When CFs of 10% to 100% were applied to second eyes of patients with the first eye PE,it reduced the absolute refractive error and the improvements were significant.When a 100% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.Difference between 100% correction and 10%-60% correction was significant when compared the mean absolute error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 100% correction and 70%-90% correction.3.2.2 For patients with first eye absolute refractive error between 0.50 and 1.0D,When CFs of 10% to 90% were applied to second eyes of patients with the first eye PE,it reduced the absolute refractive error and the improvements were significant.When a 70% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.Difference between 70% correction and 10%-30% or 90% correction was significant when compared the mean absolute error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 70% correction and 40% 50% 60% or 80% correction.3.2.3 For patients with first eye absolute refractive error exceeded 1.00 D,When CFs of 10% to 100% were applied to second eyes of patients with the first eye PE,it reduced the absolute refractive error and the improvements were significant.When a 80% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.Difference between 80% correction and 10%-50% correction was significant when compared the mean absolute error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 80% correction and 60%-100% correction.Conclusions:1.Difference of axial length between first and second eyes efractive error was not statistically significant.2.The refractive errors were strongly correlated between eyes with no statistically significant mean interocular difference.3.1 10% to 100% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions reduced the mean absolute refractive error of second eyes effectively.When a 80% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 80% correction and 60% 70% 90% or 100% correction.3.2 For patients with first eye absolute refractive error less than 0.5 D,10% to 100% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions reduced the mean absolute refractive error of second eyes effectively.When a 100% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 100% correction and 70%-90% correction.For patients with first eye absolute refractive error between 0.50 and 1.0D,10% to 90% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions reduced the mean absolute refractive error of second eyes effectively.When a 70% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 70% correction and 40%-90% correction.For patients with first eye absolute refractive error exceeded 1.00 D,10% to 100% correction factors of first eye refractive error proportions reduced the mean absolute refractive error of second eyes effectively.When a 80% correction factor was applied to second eyes,which obtained a minimum mean absolute refractive error.The difference in MAE was not significant when compared the mean absolute error between 80% correction and 60%-100% correction. |
PDF Full Text Request