Refractive outcomes in nanophthalmic eyes after phacoemulsification and implantation of a high-refractive-power foldable intraocular lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the refractive and postoperative outcomes of a high-power foldable intraocular lens (IOL) in nanophthalmic eyes. SETTING: Six ophthalmic surgical centers in Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Consecutive charts of nanophthalmic patients having cataract extraction and insertion of the CT Xtreme D IOL were reviewed. Demographic and clinical data were collected, including age, sex, axial length (AL), minimum keratometry (K) value and maximum K value, corneal white-to-white (WTW), anterior chamber depth, lens thickness (LT), and complications. The following preoperative and operative data were collected: uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalence (SE). The primary outcome measure was change in SE. The secondary outcome measures were changes in UDVA and CDVA. RESULTS: A total of 21 eyes from 13 patients with a mean follow-up time of 9.6 ± 8.5 months were studied. Mean preoperative data were: age (51.4 ± 15.2 years), AL (16.63 ± 0.68 mm), minimum K value (46.20 ± 2.26 D), maximum K value (47.55 ± 2.34 D), anterior chamber depth (2.60 ± 0.49 mm), WTW (11.08 ± 1.38 mm), LT (4.70 ± 0.97 mm), and IOL power implanted (+49.9 ± 3.3 diopters [D]). SE improved from +16.11 ± 3.26 D preoperatively to +2.00 ± 2.37 D postoperatively (P < .0001). UDVA improved from 1.47 ± 0.30 logMAR preoperatively to 0.74 ± 0.43 logMAR postoperatively (P = .016). CDVA did not change significantly. Five eyes (23.8%) had serious postoperative complications. Of these eyes, 2 had malignant glaucoma, 2 had vitreous hemorrhages, and 1 eye had a vitreous hemorrhage with retinal detachment resulting in visual acuity of no light perception. CONCLUSION: Implanting foldable high-power IOLs in a series of nanophthalmic eyes yielded significant improvement in UDVA and SE. Cataract surgery in these eyes carries increased risk. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed is a consultant to Carl Zeiss Meditec AG. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".