• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 99 (2025)
Volume Volume 98 (2025)
Volume Volume 100 (2025)
Volume Volume 97 (2024)
Volume Volume 96 (2024)
Volume Volume 95 (2024)
Volume Volume 94 (2024)
Volume Volume 93 (2023)
Volume Volume 92 (2023)
Volume Volume 91 (2023)
Volume Volume 90 (2023)
Volume Volume 89 (2022)
Volume Volume 88 (2022)
Volume Volume 87 (2022)
Volume Volume 86 (2022)
Volume Volume 85 (2021)
Volume Volume 84 (2021)
Volume Volume 83 (2021)
Volume Volume 82 (2021)
Volume Volume 81 (2020)
Volume Volume 80 (2020)
Volume Volume 79 (2020)
Volume Volume 78 (2020)
Volume Volume 77 (2019)
Volume Volume 76 (2019)
Volume Volume 75 (2019)
Issue Issue 6
Issue Issue 5
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 74 (2019)
Volume Volume 73 (2018)
Volume Volume 72 (2018)
Volume Volume 71 (2018)
Volume Volume 70 (2018)
Volume Volume 69 (2017)
Volume Volume 68 (2017)
Volume Volume 67 (2017)
Volume Volume 66 (2017)
Volume Volume 65 (2016)
Volume Volume 64 (2016)
Volume Volume 63 (2016)
Volume Volume 62 (2016)
Volume Volume 61 (2015)
Volume Volume 60 (2015)
Volume Volume 59 (2015)
Volume Volume 58 (2015)
Volume Volume 57 (2014)
Volume Volume 56 (2014)
Volume Volume 55 (2014)
Volume Volume 54 (2014)
Volume Volume 53 (2013)
Volume Volume 52 (2013)
Volume Volume 51 (2013)
Volume Volume 50 (2013)
Volume Volume 49 (2012)
Volume Volume 48 (2012)
Volume Volume 47 (2012)
Volume Volume 46 (2012)
Volume Volume 45 (2011)
Volume Volume 44 (2011)
Volume Volume 43 (2011)
Volume Volume 42 (2011)
Volume Volume 41 (2010)
Volume Volume 40 (2010)
Volume Volume 39 (2010)
Volume Volume 38 (2010)
Volume Volume 37 (2009)
Volume Volume 36 (2009)
Volume Volume 35 (2009)
Volume Volume 34 (2009)
Volume Volume 33 (2008)
Volume Volume 32 (2008)
Volume Volume 31 (2008)
Volume Volume 30 (2008)
Volume Volume 29 (2007)
Volume Volume 28 (2007)
Volume Volume 27 (2007)
Volume Volume 26 (2007)
Volume Volume 25 (2006)
Volume Volume 24 (2006)
Volume Volume 23 (2006)
Volume Volume 22 (2006)
Volume Volume 21 (2005)
Volume Volume 20 (2005)
Volume Volume 19 (2005)
Volume Volume 18 (2005)
Volume Volume 17 (2004)
Volume Volume 16 (2004)
Volume Volume 15 (2004)
Volume Volume 14 (2004)
Volume Volume 13 (2003)
Volume Volume 12 (2003)
Volume Volume 11 (2003)
Volume Volume 10 (2003)
Volume Volume 9 (2002)
Volume Volume 8 (2002)
Volume Volume 7 (2002)
Volume Volume 6 (2002)
Volume Volume 5 (2001)
Volume Volume 4 (2001)
Volume Volume 3 (2001)
Volume Volume 2 (2001)
Volume Volume 1 (2000)
Atwa, F., Kamel, H., Kamel, R., Abd El Fatah, A. (2019). Refractive Outcome after Phacoemulsification Using Optical Biometry versus Immersion Ultrasound Biometry. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 75(5), 2806-2812. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.32983
Fatma A. Atwa; Hayam S. Kamel; Rehab M. Kamel; Ahmed A. Abd El Fatah. "Refractive Outcome after Phacoemulsification Using Optical Biometry versus Immersion Ultrasound Biometry". The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 75, 5, 2019, 2806-2812. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.32983
Atwa, F., Kamel, H., Kamel, R., Abd El Fatah, A. (2019). 'Refractive Outcome after Phacoemulsification Using Optical Biometry versus Immersion Ultrasound Biometry', The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 75(5), pp. 2806-2812. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.32983
Atwa, F., Kamel, H., Kamel, R., Abd El Fatah, A. Refractive Outcome after Phacoemulsification Using Optical Biometry versus Immersion Ultrasound Biometry. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 2019; 75(5): 2806-2812. doi: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.32983

Refractive Outcome after Phacoemulsification Using Optical Biometry versus Immersion Ultrasound Biometry

Article 10, Volume 75, Issue 5, April 2019, Page 2806-2812  XML PDF (479.4 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/ejhm.2019.32983
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Fatma A. Atwa1; Hayam S. Kamel1; Rehab M. Kamel email 1; Ahmed A. Abd El Fatah2
1Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University
2National Eye Center, Rod El Farag , Cairo , Egypt
Abstract
Purpose: To compare refractive outcome after phacoemulsification using optical biometry versus immersion ultrasound biometry (US) .Patients and methods: A prospective, comparative, non-randomized interventional study included 100 eyes divided into 2 groups: Group (A): (Immersion US biometry) included 50 eyes. Axial Eye Length (AEL) was measured by immersion B scan (immersion A-scan with B- mode guided image). It was further subdivided into Group A1 (AEL ≥ 25 mm) and Group A2 (AEL < 25 mm). Group B (Optical biometry) included 50 eyes. AEL was measured using optical biometry. It was also subdivided into Group B1 (AEL ≥ 25) mm and Group B2 AEL < 25. Intra ocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using Haigis formula targeting post-operative refraction –0.5 to -1 D. Phacoemulsification with posterior chamber IOL was performed. The 2 groups were compared preoperatively for AEL, Keratometic measurements, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and density of cataract. They were compared postoperatively for UCVA, BCVA, spherical equivalent (SE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Results: The study included (100 eyes). Group A1 included 9 eyes (18%) and Group A2 included 41 eyes (82%). Group B1 included 18 eyes (36%) and Group B2 Included 32 eyes (64%). Preoperative comparisons revealed insignificant statistical differences between the 2 groups in the mean AEL, IOL power, preoperative UCVA and BCVA, degree and density of cataract, and K readings. Post operatively there was insignificant statistical differences between the 2 groups in the mean of UCVA and BCVA. There was insignificant statistical differences between subgroups A1and B1 and subgroups A2 and B2 in the median of SE and MAE. Conclusion: The immersion B scan biometry and optical biometry gave comparative results with precise final post-operative refractive outcome.
Keywords
Optical biometry; Immersion ultrasound biometry; Phacoemulsification
Statistics
Article View: 369
PDF Download: 800
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.