• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
 
  Bookmark and Share
 
 
Doctoral Thesis
DOI
10.11606/T.5.2018.tde-12122018-103000
Document
Author
Full name
Newton Andrade Junior
E-mail
Institute/School/College
Knowledge Area
Date of Defense
Published
São Paulo, 2018
Supervisor
Committee
Alves, Milton Ruiz (President)
Carricondo, Pedro Carlos
Carvalho, Keila Miriam Monteiro de
Lui Netto, Adamo
Title in Portuguese
Influência da ceratometria e profundidade de câmara anterior obtidas por biometria óptica e por sistema Scheimpflug na predição do poder dióptrico de lente intraocular multifocal calculada para emetropia
Keywords in Portuguese
Biometria
Catarata
Emetropia
Facoemulsificação
Interferometria
Lentes intraoculares
Abstract in Portuguese
Influência da ceratometria e profundidade de câmara anterior obtidas por interferometria de coerência parcial e por sistema Scheimpflug na acurácia do poder dióptrico de lente intraocular multifocal calculada para emetropia [Tese]. São Paulo: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo; 2018. Objetivo: Verificar se a ceratometria média (K) e a profundidade de câmara anterior (ACD) obtidos por biometria óptica (IOLMaster® 500) e por sistema Scheimpflug (Pentacam® HR) influenciam na predição do cálculo do poder dióptrico de LIO multifocal programada para emetropia. Métodos: Estudo clínico retrospectivo de 198 olhos portadores de catarata senil, tratados com facoemulsificação e implante de LIO multifocal. A diferença entre o valor da ¨LIO ideal¨, previsto pela fórmula biométrica de HAIGIS para emetropia e o poder dióptrico da LIO implantada foi denominada "desvio teórico da emetropia" (TDE). Foram testados quatro cenários de cálculo de LIOs, combinando as medidas K e ACD obtidas com os dois dispositivos. Resultados: No trigésimo dia de pós-operatório, o equivalente esférico foi 0 D em 118 dos 198 olhos (60%). O IOL Master® 500 e Pentacam® HR diferiram em relação à média de K (delta 0,09 ± 0,02 D, p < 0,001) e ACD (delta 0,08 ± 0,01 mm; p < 0,001). De acordo com a análise de covariância, o TDE foi 0,17 ± 0,01 D para K e ACD mensurados com IOL Master® 500; 0,27 ± 0,01 D para K e ACD obtidos com Pentacam® HR; 0,15 ± 0,01 D para K gerados com IOL Master® e ACD medidos com Pentacam® HR e 0,28 ± 0,01 D para K mensurado com Pentacam® HR e ACD obtido com IOL Master®. O TDE foi menor quando K foi medido com IOL Master® 500, independente de qual dispositivo foi usado para medir ACD. Conclusões: As predições foram menos confiáveis usando o K gerado pelo Pentacam® HR (diferença média > 0,25D), a despeito de qual equipamento tenha gerado a ACD
Title in English
Influence of keratometry and anterior chamber depth obtained by partial coherence interferometry and Scheimpflug system in the accuracy of intraocular multifocal lens diopter power calculated for emmetropia
Keywords in English
Biometry
Cataract
Emmetropia
Interferometry
Intraocular lenses
Phacoemulsification
Abstract in English
Objective: To compare the postoperative refractive predictability of IOL Master® 500 and Pentacam® HR based on K and ACD values in eyes with indication for multifocal IOLs. Methods: Clinical retrospective study of 198 consecutive eyes treated with phacoemulsification and multifocal IOL implantation. The difference between the predicted value and the ideal IOL diopter was termed theoretical deviation from emmetropia (TDE). Using Haigis' formula, the IOL closest to emmetropia was chosen. Four lens calculation scenarios were tested by combining K and ACD measurements obtained with the two devices. Results: On the 30th postoperative day, the spherical equivalent was 0 D in 118 of the 198 eyes (60%). IOL Master® and Pentacam® HR differed with regard to mean K (delta 0.09 ± 0.02 D; p < 0.001) and ACD (delta 0.08 ± 0.01 mm; p < 0.001). According to the analysis of covariance, TDE was 0.17 ± 0.01 D for K and ACD measured with IOL Master®, 0.27 ± 0.01 D for K and ACD measured with Pentacam HR; 0.15 ± 0.01 D for K measured with IOL Master® and ACD measured with Pentacam® HR, and 0.28 ± 0.01 D for K measured with Pentacam HR and ACD measured with IOL Master®. Mean K was the only statistically significant factor (p < 0.001). Thus, TDE was smaller when K was measured with IOL Master® 500, regardless of which device was used to measure ACD. Conclusion: Predictions were less reliable using the K generated by Pentacam® HR (average difference > 0,25D), regardless of which equipment has generated the ACD
 
WARNING - Viewing this document is conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms of use:
This document is only for private use for research and teaching activities. Reproduction for commercial use is forbidden. This rights cover the whole data about this document as well as its contents. Any uses or copies of this document in whole or in part must include the author's name.
Publishing Date
2018-12-12
 
WARNING: Learn what derived works are clicking here.
All rights of the thesis/dissertation are from the authors
CeTI-SC/STI
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of USP. Copyright © 2001-2020. All rights reserved.